Fiitionmy 


5B 13 &b3 





































ll 
‘ fi 
a sia 
i 
. 
ig 
" 3 
oma 
. 
bet, 

‘ 
on ; 
e-. 
ae 
“ a 

' 
¥ 
. 
— 
- y 
: “ 
nn, 
re 
’ 
¥ 











LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 


GIFT OF 




















Digitized by the Internet Archive 
-in 2007 with ‘und from 











The University of Chicago 


FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 





ATTRACTION OF MOOD 
IN EARLY LATIN 


A DISSERTATION 


SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE ScHoon oF ARTS 
AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
oF Doctor oF PHILOSOPHY 


(DEPARTMENT OF LATIN) 


BY 


TENNEY FRANK 














Ca) OF 
“tnen/FORNB 


ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 





INTRODUCTION. 


Notwithstanding the great activity of scholars in the field of 
Latin syntax during the last half century, the subject of attrac- 
tion of mood in the Latin language has passed almost unnoticed. 
The reason is not that the subject is already clearly understood. 
On the contrary, most of the statements in regard to it in the 
handbooks are, at least in part, erroneous, and confessedly are 
based upon very meager data. Neither is it a matter of small 
importance; for at few points does fine feeling for the shades 
of meaning of moods more affect the interpretation of a Latin 
sentence than in the usages of this construction. Nevertheless 
it has been slighted. I find but one treatment of the subject that 
pretends in any way to be thoroughgoing. Even this touches a 
very limited field, namely a part of Cicero; does not get com- 
plete data from this; makes little attempt at digesting the mate- 
rial gathered; and uses a method of treatment which is somewhat 
antiquated. I refer to the program of Franz Peters,’ published 
in 1861. The substance of his treatise may be found in 
Draeger,? whose lists are as full and valuable as any yet pub- 
lished on the subject. Draeger’s examples are taken mainly 
from Cicero. The same is true of Kiihner’s examples. Ziemer* 
should also be mentioned for some suggestive remarks on the 
subject. 

Several dissertations upon special constructions have of neces- 
sity touched upon the subject in passing, but have hardly affected 
the discussion of the problem, since they have approached it only 


1De attractione quadam temporum ac modorum linguae latinae. Progr., 
Deutsch-Crone, 1861. 

2 Historische Syntax der Lat, Sprache, I, sec. 151, 2-5. 

3Lat. Grammatik, II, 2. 

‘ Junggrammatische Streifziige; Colberg, 1883. 


po 
Nee 
ae 
——, 
\ 


2 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


from the point of view of their special topic. Thus Liibbert* 
places certain cum-clauses in Plautus under the category of at- 
traction. Elste,? Richardson? and Boettger* explain certain 
examples of the subjunctive with dum as due to the same influ- 
ence, Schubert,5 Lange® and Rodenbusch’ should also be men- 
tioned as having touched the subject incidentally, the latter two 
at least with some insight. The lists of Holtze,* which are sup- 
posed to cover the field of Early Latin, are not half complete, con- 
stantly betray a lack of understanding of Early Latin usage, and 
make no analysis of the material. Nevertheless they have been 
of value as presenting the largest collection of such material from 
that important period. To all of the above I have given due 
credit where they have been found serviceable. 

My attention was first called to this subject by Professor Hale, 
who in several of his works has thrown new light upon the obscure 
problem. References to these will be found in the body of this 
treatise, in which it will become apparent how great is my indebt- 
edness to him, not only for specific suggestions, but also for my 
point of view, method, and even grammatical nomenclature and 
classification. In saying this, however, I do not wish to be under- 
stood as implying that Professor Hale agrees with me in the inter- 
pretation of every example, nor in all of my reasoning. 

As regards my way of approaching the subject, it may be said 
that, after working for a considerable time over the whole range 
of Latin literature, I discovered that I was dealing with a chang- 
ing construction, and that, therefore, a historical treatment was 
the only logical one. Furthermore, it became apparent that the 
origins of the use of the subjunctive by attraction are not to be 
looked for in the language of artistic prose, with its various con- 
scious artifices; for the construction appears before the time of 
such writing, and in simpler form. On the other hand, since the 


1Die Syntax von Quom, 1870, cf. p. 125 ff. 

2De Dum Particulae Usu Plautino, 1882. 

*De Dum Particulae apud Prise. Ser. Lat., 1886. 

*De Dum Particulae Usu apud Terentium et in Rel. Trag. et Com., 1887. 
5’Zum Gebrauch der Temporalconjunktionen bei Plautus, 1881. 

$De Sententiarum Temporalium apud Prise. Ser, Lat. Syntaxi, 1878. 
7™De Temporum Usu Plautino, 1888. 


®Syntaxis Prise. Scr. Lat., 1861; and Syntaxis Frag. Scaen. Poet Rom., 
1882. 


INTRODUCTION. 3 


construction, in the very nature of the case, belongs to hypotaxis 
and a fairly well developed complex sentence, we need not become 
involved in the mists of parataxis. Early Latin, as we have it, 
may therefore confidently be called on to explain the beginnings. 
I have accordingly tried to make a thorough survey of Early 
Latin down to Lucretius. From the point of view thus gained 
I propose in a second paper to sketch the later usage of the con- 
struction. The so-called construction of “ attraction by the infini- 
tive” has some things in common with the one here treated, but 
since the data offered by early Latin are too meager to ensure safe 
generalization, I propose to postpone its discussion to a later paper 
in which I intend to use statistics gathered from classical authors 
as well. The field covered by this paper includes Plautus,! 
Terence, Cato, the early dramatic fragments, which are found in 
Ribbeck’s*? collection, and the remaining fragments of the early 
Roman poets, which are found in the sixth volume of Baehrens’* 
collection. I have, with few exceptions, adopted the text as given 
in the editions named. The lists of examples being large, the 
errors are likely to balance one another. On the other hand, the 
discussion of all examples for which the manuscript readings vary 
would swell the work to impossible limits. 

My treatment falls under two heads: (1) the sources of the con- 
struction; (2) the uses* of the construction. 

1T have used the following editions: for Plautus, that of Gétz and Schill, 
Leipzig, 1893-1898; for Terence, that of Dziatzko, Leipzig, 1884; for Cato’s 
Agri Cultura, that of Keil, Leipzig, 1894; for the fragments of Cato, that of 
Jordan, Leipzig, 1860, 

2Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1896-7. 

3 Poetae Latini Minores, VI, Leipzig, 1885. 

‘I regret to say that I have not been able to avail myself of a study upon 
the same subject which was announced after my paper had gone to print. 
I refer to the paper of F. Antoine (L’Attraction modale en Latin, Mélanges 
Boissier, Paris, Fontemoing). Judging by the accurate and sane work of 
that scholar, I feel that the loss to my study must be great indeed; and I 


can only make it good by referring the reader to his work which may sup- 
plement and correct the views expressed by mine. 


CHAPTER I. 
Tue Sources oF THE CONSTRUCTION. 


A number of years ago Professor Hale pointed out the way in 
which the origins of the construction now under examination must 
be studied. He says in his ‘Sequence of Tenses’ (American 
Journal of Philology, VIII [1888], 1, p. 54; and American Jour- 
nal of Philology, IX [1889], 2, pp. 175-6): “In complex sen- 
tences made up of a main sentence with subjunctive verb and one 
or more subordinate sentences, the modal feeling in the speaker’s 
mind which expresses itself in the main sentence is, in the nature 
of things, very likely to continue in the speaker’s mind in the 
subordinated sentence or sentences, either quite unchanged or but 
slightly shaded. If, for example, I say in Latin, ‘ Let him send 
whom he will,’ matiat quem velit, the mood in velit is not a case 
of ‘attraction’ or ‘assimilation’ at all. . Velit is as much a 
jussive as mittat is. The meaning is, ‘ Let him choose his man, 
and send that man’; or, in older English, ‘ Choose he his man and 
send him.’ In sez ques esent quet sibei deicerent necesus ese 
Bacanal habere (C. I. L., I, 196), the deicerent is as much a 
future condition (== set ques deicerent) as esent is.” Again, 
“the frequent recurrence of such examples gives rise to the occa- 
sional use of a dependent subjunctive with only a formal likeness 
to the main subjunctive, and no true modal feeling.” Later he 
reiterates the statement in a paper on the Anticipatory Sub- 
junctive’ (p. 63, footnote). 

This wording implies, of course, that the construction in ques- 
tion is a thing brought about and developed. As for Professor 
Hale’s interpretation of the mood of velit and deicerent, there can 
be no dispute, and it is my belief that, in the other main divi- 
sions of the subjunctive also, a great number of the cases usually 
treated as examples of attraction are to be interpreted in the same 

1University of Chicago Press, 1894. Reprinted in Studies in Classical 
Philology of the University of Chicago, Vol. I, 1895. 

4 


THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 5 


way; and that these must be distinguished from those which are 
in reality due to the habit of attraction pure and simple. The 
distinction might well be expressed in the terms of Professor 
Hale, who speaks of the mood of “like feeling” and that of 
** formal likeness.” 

We are to seek, then, for combinations in which the modal feel- 
ing expressed by the main verb may naturally cast its shadow 
over the subjunctive clause. Obviously, there would be a lim- 
ited number of conditions under which this is possible. 

The conditions are favorable when both the verbs (main and 
subordinate) are in the same grammatical tense, and are placed in 
the same actual time-sphere. Such a state of affairs may be illus- 
trated by the examples above, or by Aul. 491, quo lubeant, nubant, 
“let them marry where they please,” i. e., “ let them choose their 
place, and marry there.” 

These clauses occur freely in dependence upon subjunctives of 
“ volition,” ‘‘ wish,” ‘“‘ permission ” and the like. I add further 
illustrations : 

With a subjunctive of permission: 

Bacch. 656, furetur quod queat, “let him steal what he can” 

(‘what he shall be able to steal ’’). 
With a subjunctive of wish: 

Hee. 197, di uortant bene quod agas, ‘‘ May the gods further 

what you do” (“shall do”). 
With a substantive volitive clause: 

Bacch. 674, occasio. . . fuit . . . ut quantum velles tantum 
sumeres, “there was opportunity to take as much as you 
wished ” (“as much as you should wish”). 

The conditions are less favorable when the subjunctive verb, 
though in the same grammatical tense, is not in the same time- 
sphere as that of the main clause. An example may be seen in 
Cas. 252, iam domuisti animum . . . ut, quod uir uelit fieri, id 
facias? “‘ have you brought your mind to do (i. e., will you do?) 
that which your husband desires?” 

Between the more favorable conditions and the less favorable 
lie the conditions in which it is impossible to tell from the con- 
text whether the subordinate verb is in the same time-sphere with 


1A. J. P., Vol. IX, p. 176. 


6 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


the main verb, or, though grammatically in the same tense, is 
not in the same time-sphere,—or, to state the matter in another 
way, the conditions in which either relation is reasonable, and 
there is nothing to determine which is meant. Such a state of 
things may be seen in Epid. 283, iam igitur amota ei fuerit omnis 
consultatio nuptiarum, ne grauetur quod uelis, “ dismiss at once 
then the whole question of marriage, lest he shall begrudge you 
what you wish.” Either “wish” or “shall wish” is here rea- 
sonable, and nothing in the context bars either meaning. Such 
combinations formed a bridge from the use of the subjunctive of 
“like feeling ’’ to the use of the subjunctive of “ formal like- 
ness”? in the dependent clause, and thus carried the mood over 
from its original domain in the former field to a new domain in 
the latter. 

Distinctly unfavorable are the conditions when there is a shift 
in tense as well as in time-sphere, as when a verb in the past 
depends grammatically upon a future verb of willing or wishing, 
as in Cas. 503, ut quod mandaui curet, “ that he may execute the 
commissions which I have given”; or, to take a subjunctive, in 
Rud. 1243, ut cum maiore dote abeat quam aduenerit, “ that she 
may depart with a larger dowry than she brought with her.” 
Here aduenerit, a verb of past time, could not share in the future 
volitive idea expressed by the mood and tense of abeat. In sen- 
tences of this type, then, is found the extreme of the fully devel- 
oped habit of attraction. | 

With this preliminary explanation, we pass to an enumeration 
and discussion of the various kinds of subjunctives after which 
the verb of the dependent clause is at times found to contain the 
same modal feeling as that of the main clause (“‘ subjunctive of — 
like feeling”’). 

I find these kinds to be as follows :1 


[Jussive and Permissive. 
“Deliberative” and its extensions 
1. Volitive Subjunctive; (Subjunctive of Surprise or In- 
dignation). 

| Dependent Volitive. 


1The order in this list is that of the treatment which follows, and is de- 
termined by practical considerations of exposition. 





THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. ! 


2. Optative Subjunctive—independent and dependent. 

3. Subjunctive of Obligation or Propriety. 

4. Anticipatory Subjunctive, for the present or the past (pres- 
ent-future or past-future). 

5. Conditional Subjunctive. 

6. Subjunctive of Ideal Certainty (as in Subjunctive Conclu- 
sions). 

7. Subjunctive in Indirect Questions. 


A. 


Subjunctives depending upon subjunctives with simple volitive 
or optative force have been sufficiently treated above (pp. 5-6). 


B. 


The clauses which depend upon a subjunctive of “surprise 
or indignation,” though of volitive (“deliberative”) origin, 
may well be treated in a separate paragraph, since they show 
some important peculiarities. Through the very nature of this 
construction, it matters little whether the main and the depend- 
ent verbs are in the same time-sphere; for surprise or indignation 
is expressed as readily at an act that took place in the past as at 
one of the present time. Ordinarily, in this group, it is easy to 
tell from the context whether the secondary verb has naturally 
the feeling of the main verb. The following sentence affords a 
good illustration of this class: Phorm. 970-3, ubi quae lubitum 
fuerit peregre feceris neque huius sis weritus feminae primariae, 
. . . uenias nune precibus lautum peccatum tuom! 

The mood of wenias expresses the speaker’s (feigned) indigna- 
tion. That same feeling extends,’ it seems to me, through feceris, 
and sis ueritus, since these dwell upon the very acts which caused 
the anger. It probably does not extend into the explanatory 
clause quae lubitum fuerit, or, if it does, it extends with far less 
force. I should say that feceris and sis ueritus are in the sub- 
junctive for the same reason that wenzas is, but that lubstum fuerit 


1In the following examples, in which the main verbs are in the indicative, 
I should prefer to interpret the dependent subjunctives as due to indignation 
and surprise rather than to an adversative feeling. 

Pers. 76, sumne ego stultus qui rem curo publicam wbi sint magistratus 
quos curare oporteat! 


8 ATTRAOTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


is a ease of attraction. This statement may become clearer if we 
compare the following sentence, in which the explanatory clause, 
which is much like the one just discussed, is left in the indica- 
tive: 
Men. 560, Egone hic me patiar in matrimonio 
Ubi uir compilet clanculum quicquid domist? 


In the following the subordinate verbs are, if my interpretation 
is right, in the subjunctive, not by mechanical attraction, but 


Pseud, 184, Eo uost uostros panticesque adeo madefactatis quom ego sim 
hie siccus! Here Lange (De Sententiarum Temporalium apud Prise. Scr. Lat. 
Syntaxi, p. 45) needlessly proposes to emend madefactatis to madefaciatis, in 
order to get a raison d’étre for the mood of sim. 

Capt. 892, dubium habebis etiam, sancte quom ego iurem tibi! 

In the first of these examples the force is not felt with such strength, at the 
moment when sum and curo are uttered, as to call for the subjunctive; but the 
speaker’s indignation rises as he proceeds, and finds full expression in sint and 
oporteat. I would add to this list Ad. 166, noui ego uostra haec “ nollem 
factum, dabitur ius iurandum, indignum te esse iniuria hac,” indignis quom 
egomet sim acceptus modis. The tone of the last clearly is “to think of 
coming with such excuses, after I have been abused in this way!” Lange (ibid., 
p. 43) goes far afield in saying that the mood of the cum-clause is due to its 
dependence upon the infinitive, and Liibbert (Die Syntax von Quom, p. 140) 
makes it one of the two clauses in Terence which are in this mood because 
of a causal quom. If we are right in recognizing this force in the dependent 
temporal clauses above (with a main verb in the indicative), we shall also 
recognize it when a subjunctive clause with ubi or cum is found in dependence 
upon a subjunctive; for the existence of such clauses after an indicative proves 
that those which we find after a subjunctive are not necessarily in that mood 
because of attraction, but possibly by their own inherent force, I should like- 
wise suggest that many of the so-called causal and adversative qui-clauses in 
Plautus and Terence should rather be explained as due to the presence of this 
other force. For, if we are right in recognizing the subjunctive of surprise 
or indignation after a cum (cf. Bacch. 1192, Egon quom haec cum illo accubet 
inspectem?) and ubi (Epid. 588, Non patrem ego te nominem wbi tu tuam me 
appelles filiam?), we should naturally do so after qui in clauses of the same 
nature, as in Pers. 27, deisne aduorser quasi Titani, cum eis belligerem, 
quibus sat esse non queam! and in Rud, 1244, Egone ut quod ad me allatum 
esse alienum sciam celem? Note how closely, in the two examples following, 
the qui-clause and the cum-clause correspond: M. G. 964, Vah, egone ut ad 
te ab libertina esse auderem internuntius, qui ingenuis satis responsare 
nequeas! Most. 896, Tibi obtemperem quom tu mihi nequeas! 

I do not wish to be understood as giving my assent to the view adopted 
by Dittmar, Lateinische Modus-Lehre, a view credited to Luchs by 
Guthmann (Uber eine Art unwilliger Fragen, Niirnberg, 1891, p. 1; see also 
Stolz-Schmalz Gram. [1900] p. 370), that this force’ was the origin of the sub- 
junctive in qui-causal clauses. An examination of all the data will disprove the 


THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 9 


because of their own inherent force of surprise, indignation, or 
the like. Thus, the first of the following examples is practically 
equal to: Haec cum illo accubet, et ego inspectem! cf. Cic. Cat. 
2, 8, 18, tu rebus omnibus comosus sis, et dubites! “ You a man 
provided with everything,—and you hesitate! ” + 
With quom: 
Bacch. 1192, Egon, quom haec cum illo accubet, inspectem ? 
Most. 896, Tibi obtemperem, quom tu mihi nequeas? 
Heaut. 413-15, Verum quom uideam miserum hune tam ex- 
cruciarier elus abitu, celem tam insperatum gaudium quom 
illi pericli nil ex indicio siet? 
Hee. 341, Non uisam uxorem Pamphili, quom in proximo hic 
sit aegra ¢ 
Andr. 944, Egon huius memoriam patiar meae uoluptati ob- 
stare, guom ego possvm in hac re medicari mihi! 
Bacch. 285, Adeon me fuisse fungum ut qui illi crederem, 


Quom mi ipsum nomen eius Archidemides 
Clamaret dempturum esse! 


With ubi temporal: 
Epid. 588, Non patrem te nominem, whi tu tuam me appelles 
filiam ? 
Men. 560-1, Egone hic me patiar in matrimonio, 
Ubi uir compilet clanculum quidquid domist 


Atque ea ad amicam deferat? 
Ubi local: 


Bacch. 1190, Egon, ubi filius corrumpatur meus, ibi potem % 
I should add to this list, for reasons given in the footnote (p. 


theory. One of the numerous weaknesses in Dittmar’s general procedure lies in 
the fact that his theories are bolstered up by a few cleverly chosen examples 
which are interpreted to suit the theory in question. As for the interpreta- 
tion of the cum-clauses given at the beginning of this note, I am well aware 
of the fact that it is by no means certain. It may be that all of the sub- 
junctives with cum in Plautus and Terence (outside of cases of attraction 
or indirect discourse) are due to unconscious corruption on the part of copy- 
ists who were following the usage of their own times. Cf. Hale, Cum-Construc- 
tions, p. 211. Ubi sint of Pers. 76 may likewise be adversative. 

1 This is classed in the Hale-Buck Grammar, § 503, as illustrating the extreme 


development from the volitive question. It is ordinarily classed as a Potential 
subjunctive. 


10 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


8), the qui causal-adversative clauses which show the same force. 
Cf. Asin. 838, 
An tu me tristem putas? 
Putem ego quem uideam aeque esse maestum ut quasi dies si 
dicta sit ? 
C. 

Akin to the subjunctive of indignation in feeling, though of 
a different origin,’ is that which expresses “ obligation or pro- 
priety,” and I accordingly treat it next. In Hee. 658, nune, 
guom eius alienum a me esse animum sentiam, ... quam ob 
rem redducam? the main verb asks a question of propriety in a 
tone of surprise, which latter feeling has full possession of the 
subordinate verb and makes it subjunctive. The same is true in 
Eun. 566, quid ego eius tibi nunc faciem praedicem aut laudem, 
Antipho, quom ipsus me noris quam elegans formarum spectator 
siem ? 

Again, I should add to this list many of the so-called qui-causal 
clauses which may be interpreted as expressing the same feeling, 
and depend upon verbs in the subjunctive of propriety. So, for 
instance, I do not see why subjunctives like the following, with 
qui, should be placed in a different class from those just cited 
with quom: 

M. G. 426, Quin ego hoe rogem quod nesciam ! 

M. G. 556, Vidi: cur negem quod wderim! 

Amph. 434, Quid ego ni negem gui egomet siem! 

The number of these examples in Plautus and Terence is large. 

There are also certain subordinate clauses depending upon verbs 
like mereo, which belong to this group. Thus in Men. 1067, 
non edepol ita promeruisti de me ut pigeat quae uelis, “ you have 
deserved better of me than that you should express a wish and 
be disappointed,” I should say that the mood of welis is not due 
to attraction, but conveys the idea of propriety quite as clearly 
as pigeat does. The feeling of remonstrance is also strong in the 
cum-clauses of the following, in which wt siet must be classed as 
a substantive clause of propriety (I should not, with Liibbert, p. 
81, take the Subjunctives with cum as due to mechanical attrac- 
tion) : 

1Cf. Hale, Proceedings Am. Phil. As., Vol. 32 [1901], p. 120. 


~ 


THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 11 


Bacch. 140-2, 


Non par uidetur neque sit consentaneum, 

Quom haec intus intus sit et cum amica accubet, 
Quomque osculetur et conuiuae alii accubent, 
Praesentibus illis paedagogus una ut siet. 


In none of the above, then, is the dependent clause mechanically 
attracted. It may be said to be in the subjunctive because it is 
within the penumbra of the subjunctive shadow extended by the 
main verb. And it seems highly probable that the mechanical 
habit of assimilation was helped on by the occurrence of a great 
number of such instances. | 


D. 

The part played by the anticipatory subjunctive’ is probably 
the most important of all in the creation of this construction. 
In the first place, all futures, when thrown into the past, of neces- 
sity are expressed by the subjunctive.” 

Epid. 501, Conducta ueni ut fidibus cantarem seni dum rem 

diuinam faceret. 
In which faceret represents a future dum faciet projected into the 
past. Contrast: 

Epid. 47, Ipse mandauit . . . ut fidicina quam amabat eme- 

retur sibi, 
in which amabat represents a present amat thrown into past dis- 
course. Other examples of the past future are: 


1 The existence of such a type of the Subjunctive is now coming to be gen- 
erally recognized. See Hale’s “The Sequence of Tenses” A, J. P., VIII 
(1887) p. 48 (act “in view”); Rodenbusch, De Temporum Usu Plautino, 
1888; Sonnenschein, Cl. Rev., vol. VII, Feb. (1893); Hale, Cl. Rev. vol. VIII, 
April (1894), and Anticipatory Subjunctive, 1894; Schmalz, Lat. Gram. 
(1900) p. 370; Blase, Hist. Lat. Gram. (1903) III, p. 124. 

2 See the Hale-Buck Latin Grammar, § 508-9, and Hale’s Anticipatory Sub- 
junctive, p. 64, footnote. It is customary, of course, to treat the mood in 
such cases as due to attraction, or, if after verbs “‘ sentiendi et declarandi,” 
as due to indirectness of discourse. So Liibbert treats Amph, 128, and Bacch. 
955 (cf. pp. 86 and 93). MHoltze’s treatment is similar. See pp. 192-5 
passim. It must be understood, however, that the verbs in such cases could 
not have been in the indicative, and therefore it is impossible to say that they 
have been attracted. They are, as explained in the Supplement to the Hale- 
Buck Grammar, not due to the habit of using the subjunctive, but factors 
contributing to bring about that habit. 


12 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


Pseud. 57, Ea causa miles hic reliquit symbolum . 
ut qui huc adferret eius similem symbolum 
cum eo simul me mitteret. 
Amph. 128, ut ne qui essem familiares quaererent 
uorsari crebro hic quom utderent me domi. 


Cf. also Epid. 316, faceret; Epid. 356, redisses; Epid. 386, in- 
spexissent; Amph. 83-4, mandasset, fecisset; Amph. 225, uicti 
sint; Bacch. 955, scinderetur; Trin. 1144, darem; 314, esset; 
Adel. 109, eiecisset; Hec. 545, egissem; Cure. 346, attulisset. 

It is not a great step from sentences like these to the following, 
in which one cannot be positive whether the original verb of the 
dependent clause was a future or a present: Bacch. 550, ille 
.. . accuratum habuit quod posset mali faceret in me. Cf. 554. 
Here posset could stand for either potero or possum. From such 
examples the step is short to the use of the imperfect subjunctive 
for a dependent clause thrown from the present into the past. 
Cf. Mere. 152, me rupi causa currendo tua ut quae scirem scire 
actutum tibi liceret; Bacch. 788, orabat quod istic esset scriptum 
ut fieret. To such cases it is correct to apply the word attraction, 
since the verbs could be in the indicative if emphasis required it. 
Cf. Eun. 574, (ut) . .. essem una quacum cupiebam. 

In the second place, our study of early Latin seems to bear out 
the belief of Professor Hale’ that “in such a case as di tibi dent 
quaequomque optes (‘the gods grant you whatever your heart 
shall wish’), Plaut., As. 44, we have the descendant of an orig- 
inal determinative anticipatory clause.” ‘I have long believed,” 
Professor Hale says,? “that the anticipatory subjunctive supplies 
a large factor to the development of this construction (attraction). 
Especially in Plautus and Terence, a considerable proportion of 
the subjunctives of ‘ assimilation’ after primary tenses seem easily 
to be accounted for as simply anticipatory, if we assume that the 
anticipatory power still remained to the mood at that time. This 
has been shown to be the case for Terence, in a paper written for 
the degree of A.B. by Mr. F. O. Bates, a student of mine at Cor- 
nell, in the year 1891-2.” 


1 Antic. Subj., p. 63, footnote. 
2Tbid., p. 64, footnote. 


THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 13 


An examination of the expressions of this kind in early Latin 
certainly gives strength to the belief that the anticipatory power 
still persisted in them, though the Roman grammarians, like the 
modern, may have lost sight of the origin and referred the mode 
to “attraction.” The case of dum, meaning “ while” and “as 
long as ” and pointing to the future, furnishes a good illustration. 
Whenever its clause is subjunctive in early Latin and depends 
upon a subjunctive, it is the practice to say that the mood is due 
to attraction. In this way Boettger (De Dum Particulae Usu, 
etc., p. 20) explains dum-clauses in the following: habet haec ei 
quod dum wiwat usque ad aurem obganniat, Phorm. 1030; ita uelim 
me promerentem ames, dum uiuas, mi pater, ut me... dolet? 
Adel. 681; and ut dum uiuat meminerit semper mei, Heaut. 951. 
In the same way the dum-clauses in the following are explained 
by Elste (De Dum Particulae Usu Plautino, p. 26): quid dotis? 
egone; ut semper, dum uiuat, me alat, Cure. 664; neu sessum 
ducat, dum histrio in scaena siet, Poen. 20; faciam ut mei memi- 
heris, dum uitam uiuas, Pers. 495; quaeso dum uiuas uti omnes 
tui similes hospites habeas tibi, Rud. 499. And Richardson (De 
Dum Particulae apud Priscos Scriptores Latinos Usu, p. 72) 
similarly explains the dependent clause in Epid. 501, which is a 
sentence of the same kind, in dependence upon a verb in the past. 
But the occurrence of subjunctives after dum with the same 
meaning, which do not depend upon subjunctives and which 
clearly show anticipatory force, proves that the cases just men- 
tioned should be considered as instances of the anticipatory sub- 
junctive. The following will illustrate what I mean: 

Truc. 716, Egot interim hic restiti tricis praesidebo 

iste dum sic faciat domum ad te exagogam. 
Cf. toypa --- xtypar’ Edovtae bypa xe xetvy todtoy Fyn voov. P1238. 
dyp dv pév xev dodpar ev dopovinaw dapypn, togp abrod 
pevéw, e€ 361. 
True. 103, Oenus eorum aliquist oculum amicae 
usque oggerit dum illi agant. 

The same subjunctive with other particles is illustrated by the 
following: 

Amph. 439: ubi ego Sosia nolim esse, tu esto sane Sosia.! 


1This interpretation is given by Lange, De Sententiarum Temporalium 
apud Prisc. Scr. Lat, Syntaxi, p. 41. 


14 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


Of. émiy 07 por ayediny dea xipa tevdéy, vpfopar. ¢€ 363. 

See also in Umbrian: pone esonome ferar ... ere fertu— 
Iguv. Tab. VIb, 50, which Biicheler translates: cum in rem — 
divinam feretur . . . is ferto. 

Trin. 1131, id repetundi copiast quando welts. 

Blase? goes so far even as to accept Rodenbusch’s explanation 
of the subjunctive for the following independent sentences in 


Plautus: 
Amph. 1060: Nec me miserior feminast neque ulla wdeatur 
magis. 
Truc. 907: Nunquam hoe uno die efficiatur opus. 
Now that the existence of this subjunctive has become so widely 
recognized, it will no longer seem an unnatural interpretation to 


1 Buck, The Oscan-Umbrian Verb-System, Studies in Class. Phil., Chicago, 
1895, p. 146; also Buck, Osc.-Umbr. Grammar, 1904, p. 219, of which he has 
kindly permitted me to use the proof sheets. 

2 Historische Lateinische Grammatik (1903), p. 123. Cf. also p. 124, 
where Blase with Rodenbusch and Hale takes guaecumque optes, cited above, 
as an example of the Anticipatory subjunctive, rather than as due to attrac- 
tion. His words are: “ Ahnlich nahe stehen sich Konj. Pris. und futur im 
Relativsatz . . . So ist der unklassische Konjunktif in verallgemeinernden 
Relativsiitzen zu erkliren wie As. 44, di tibi dent quaecumque optes; Stich., 
69 pati nos oportet, quod ille faciat quoius potestas plus potest. Denn da, 
wo futurale Bedeutung ausgeschlossen ist, steht der Indikativ, wie Pers. 293 
eveniant tibi quae optas (— modo optavisti). . . . Hine Reihe von Typen des 
konjunktivischen Gebrauchs in untergeordneten Satzen fiihrt auf diesen von 
ihm ‘ prospektiv’ genannten Gebrauch zurtick Hale, The Anticipatory Sub- 
junctive, etc.” Blase is, however, not correct in stating that “wo futurale 
bedeutung ausgeschlossen ist, steht der indikativ.” The futures of this kind 
are, to be sure, wsually in the subjunctive; but it has escaped Blase’s notice 
that these very cases had by the time of Plautus gone so far in creating a 
habit for attraction that even present generalizing clauses of the same gen- 
eral nature are frequently in the subjunctive, and that this habit had 
been strengthened by a factor already referred to (p. 5), in which, even in 
the present tense, the subordinate clause is subjunctive by the extension of the 
modal feeling from the governing verb. The dependent clause of Pseud. 936, 
tantum tibi boni di immortales duint quantum tu tibi exoptes, certainly refers 
to the present time, for the wish in question had just been expressed. 
Nevertheless it is in the subjunctive mood, The context is equally explicit in 
referring the dependent verb of M. G. 1038, di tibi dent quaequomque optes, to 
the present. For further examples, see the list on p. 32. Furthermore 
Blase, by his interpretation, which is correct enough, of the illustration which 
he cites (eveniant tibi quae optas [=modo optavisti]), shows that he is 
really not dealing with a generalizing (“ verallgemeinerenden”) clause, but 
with a determinative clause; and he has failed to see that quae optas is in 


THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 15 


take optes of the sentence cited by Mr. Hale (di tibi dent quae- 
cumque optes) as a survival of the Anticipatory subjunctive, and 
to state that these anticipatory subjunctives, surviving, as is nat- 
ural, after present subjunctives referring to the future, formed 
an important influence in the development of the habit of attrac- 
tion.1 An examination of the table following will show that a 
very large percentage of the verbs referring to the future and 
depending upon a verb in the subjunctive is placed in the same 
mood; that in fact the percentage is far higher here than in any 
other time-sphere; and that if, in addition to referring to the 
future, the subordinate verb is placed in close proximity to the 
governing subjunctive (cf. p. 46), it is almost invariably in the 
same mood. 


the indicative, not because it does not refer to the future, but because it is 
a very definite determinative clause (quae modo optavisti) (cf. p. 49). 
Blase was probably led astray by the erroneous statement of Lange (loc. cit., 
p. 45): Hie usus apud Plautum et Terentium certis etiamdum finibus con- 
strictus fuit: tum enim solum adhibitus est cum in enuntiatione demon- 
strativa futura aliqua notio continetur. But Lange had himself seen that 
the subordinate verb, even when referring to the future, was less frequently 
in the subjunctive when it preceded the main subjunctive than when it was 
closely attached to it (p. 39). A sharper analysis then, even if Blase failed 
in data, would have led him to the conclusion that the mood in these cases 
was not wholly a matter of the expression of the idea of futurity, but in some 
of them was due to the proximity of the clause to the subjunctive of the 
governing clause, i. e., to mechanical attraction. 

1In this connection it should be noted that the examples of attraction— 
so-called—which occur in Oscan and Umbrian are verbs which refer to the 
future, The list is as follows: 

1. pun far kahad, nip putiiad edum. (Curse of Vibia.) (When he takes 
food may he not be able to eat.) (Buck, Osc.-Umbr. Verb-System, p. 147.) 

2. prehabia, pire uraku ri esuna si herte, et pure esune sis. Iguv. Tab. 
V, a, 5. (praehibeat quidquid ad illam rem diuinam sit oporteat, et qui in 
diuino sint. Buck, Ose.-Umbr, Verb-System, p. 144.) 

3. persei marsei (?) depending upon a subjunctive. Iguv. Tab. VI, a, 28, 
38, 48. (“So far as is right.”) This is not an undoubted instance. See 
Buck, Ose.-Umbr, Grammar, p. 218, 

Mr. Buck, from whose paper (The Oscan-Umbrian Verb System) I have taken 
these examples, adds in a footnote (p. 149) “ Assimilation may be a conserving 
rather than a creative force, may merely tend to preserve an old construction 
against the inroads of the future indicative.” 


16 


ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


Sussunotives Wuicu REFER TO THE FuTURE AND DEPEND 


Uron SUBJUNCTIVES. 


A. Depending upon Independent Volitwe Subjunctives. 


qui. 


cum. 


ubr. 


dum. 


quando. 


ubicumque. 


qui. 


In the Second Person. 
Hee. 391, id facias quod in rem sit tuam. 
Stich. 149, neque tu me celassis quod scas. 
Cato,’ R. R. 61, agrum frumentarium cum ares 
bene . .. ares. 
In the Third Person. 
Asin. 776-7, neque illaec ulli pede pedem homini 
premat guom surgat, 
. « . neque quom descendat inde, det quoiquam 
manum. 
Asin. 780, quom waciat “ te” ne dicat. 
Cf. Oscan,? Pun far kahad, nip putiiad edum 
(when he takes food, may he not be able to eat). 
Truc. 233, whi nil habeat alium quaestum coepiat. 
Cato, R. R. 3, olea whi lecta siet, oleum fiat con- 
tinuo. 
Poen. 20, neu sessum ducat dum histrio in scaena 
sitet. 
Truc. 232, dum habeat, dum amet. 
Pseud. 307, quando nil sit, simul amare desinat. 
Bacch. 652, ubiquomque usus siet, pectore expromat 
suo. 
Plaut. Frag. Fab. cert. 91, quique liceat, ueneat. 
Cato, R. R. 2, quae satis accipienda sint, satis ac- 
cipiantur. 
2, frumentum quod supersit uendat. 
5, cui dussus siet, auscultet. 
2, quae opus sint locato, locentur. 
89, ex gula consideret, quod satis svt. 
Aul. 156, quae cras uensat, perendie foras feratur. 


3 é< 
“% éé 
éé ‘<c 


ce 73 


1 As Cato’s treatise is a series of directions for a definite person, with a 
view to future contingencies, we need not doubt that the subjunctives quoted 
from the De Re Rustica refer to the future, and further that they are never 
instances of the subjunctive in the second person indefinite. 

From the “ Curse of Vibia,” see Buck, Oscan-Umbrian Verb System, p. 147. 


THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 17 


B. Depending upon Dependent Clauses of Plan. 


cum. Aul. 278, ibo intro ut . . . facta quom uenzat sient. 
Asin. 185, ut quom uideat gaudeat. 
Cas. 133, unde auscultare possis quom ego illam 
ausculer, 
Cur. 253, ut sit paratum prandium quom uemiat. 
Most. 1064, astate, ut quom extemplo wocem, con- 
tinuo exiliatis. 
Most. 249, ornata ut sim quom huc aduenzat. 
Pseud. 168, ne mora quae sit... cocus gquom 
uenat. 
Pseud. 1115, ne quom adsie¢t metuam. 
Pers. 190, ut domi sis guom ego te esse illi censeam. 
Pers. 191, uti domi sim quom illi censeas. 
Pers. 152, ut fleat quom ea memoret. 
Cato, R. R. 73, ne quaeras guom opus siet. 
Heaut. 711, ut quom narret senex . . . non credat 
tamen. 
Adel. 354, curre . . . ut quom opus sit, ne in mora 
nobis siet. 
Andr. 424, i nunciam intro ne in mora quom opus 
sit sies. 
Phorm. 839, ne quom hic non wideant, me conficere 
credant argentum. | 
Hee. 694,' ut cum illa uiuas testem hane quom abs 
te amoueris. 
Eun. 933,! ut quom cognorit perpetuo oderit. 
Men. 543,) ut te lubenter uideam quom ad nos 
ueneris. 
Cap. 435, tu me ignores quom extemplo meo e 
conspectu abscesseris. 
Heaut. 854, ut quom desponderim des. 
quando. Bacch. 768, ut quando exeat, extemplo ... ei ta- 
bellas dem. 
Men. 1045, ne tum quando sanus factus sit, a me 
argentum petat. 
Bacch. 730, ut pater cognoscat litteras, quando 
legat. 
Poen. 552, ut quando agas, quid agas, sciant. 
1The dependent verbs are probably in the subjunctive, cf. p. 51. 


18 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


priusquam. Eun. 751, caue ne priusquam’ hance accipias, amit- 


tas. 
ubt. Bacch. 43, ut wbt emeritum sibi sit se reuehat 
domum. 
“« 45, ut reuehatur domum whi ei dederit 
operas. 
M. G. 3, ut uwbi usus weniat . . . praestringat ocu- 


lorum aciem. 
Pers. 230, ne whi uorsicapillus fias, foede semper 
seruias. | 
Truc. 280, quin ubs nil det . . . eum mittat... 
domum. 
M. G. 1122, ut ubi illaec prodeat me prouoces. 
M. G. 946, nequid, whi miles wenerit, titubetur. 
dum. Cur. 664, ut semper dum uiuat me alat. 
qui. Aul. 600, herile imperium ediscat ut quod frons 
uelit oculi sciant; quod wubeat . . . properet per- 
sequl. 
Pseud. 883, ut quisque ... gustauerit 
faciam. 
Pers. 156, adferto causiam quam ille habeat qué 
hance... . wendat. 
Mere. 504, ut quod wmperetur facias. 
Cato, R. R. 137, quod bubus satis siet, gui illic sient. 
comparison. Truc. 96, nequis aduentor grauior abaetat quam 


adueniat. 

ubicumque. Pseud. 580, ut ubsquomque hostibus congrediar. . . 
ut uincam. 

C. Depending upon Clauses of Proviso. 

qui. M. G. 785-6,? dum modo eam des quae sit quaes- 
tuosa, quae alat corpus corpore, quoique saprat 
pectus. 

D. Depending upon Substantive Clauses of Fear. 

cum. Heaut. 1017, metuis ne non guom uelis conuincas 
esse illum tuom. 

qui. Bacch. 1173, non metuo nequid mihi doleat quod 
ferias. 


1See p. 53. 
*Perhaps this illustrates the volitive subjunctive. 





THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 19 


EK. Depending upon Substantive Clauses of Plan, Wish, or 
Request. 


cum. 


quando. 


dum. 


utquomque. 


quam 
priomum. 


Amph. 542, numquid uis? Ut quom absim me 
ames, 

Amph. 9838, fac sis . . . ut ministres mihi, mihi 
quom sacruficem. 

Aul. 2738, curata fac sint quom a foro redeam 
domum. 

Capt. 494, irrogabo multam ut mihi cenas decem 
meo arbitratu dent quom cara annona sit. 

Stich. 65, facite sultis nitidae ut aedes meae sint 
quom redeam. 

M. G. 578, ut miles quom extemplo a foro adueniat 
domum, comprehendar. 

Cato, R. R. 28, caueto cum uentus sieé aut imber, 
effodias. 

Truc. 433, (uolo) ut quando otium tibi sit ad me 
reuisas. 

Pseud. 663, uide sis ne in quaestione sis quando! 
accersam. 

Aul. 613, quin wbi accersat meam extemplo filiam 
ducat domum. 

Rud. 1220, (fac) ut mi Ampelisea nubat ubi ego 
sim. liber. 

Poen. 855, ut whi mihi deualenden sit tu corium 
sufferas. 

Eun. 394, hoe prouiso ut wbi tempus siet deducam. 

Cato, R. R. 2, wht ea cognita aequo animo sint.. . 
uti perficiantur. 

Pers. 495, faciam ut mei memineris dum uitam 
urvuas. 

Rud. 499, deos immortales quaeso dum uiuas uti 
omnes tui similes hospites habeas tibi. 

Adel. 681, uelim me . . . ames dum wiuas. 

Andr. 736, tu ut subseruias orationi utquomque 
opus si¢ uerbis wide. 

Capt. 448, ut quam primum possis redeas. 

Trin. 41, teque ut quam primum possim uideam 
emortuam. 


1J do not hesitate to class accersam with the subjunctives. 


20 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


qui. Stich. 121, pridie caueat ne faciat quod ygeat pos- 

tridie. 

Capt. 386, ut potissimum quod in rem recte con- 
ducat tuam id petam. 

Most. 558, eum uideto ut capias gut credat mihi. 

Pers. 616, scio officium meum, ut quae rogiter uera 
eloquar. 

Phorm. 449, quae in rem tuam sint ea uelim facias. 

Eun. 1026, ut faciam quod wheat. 

Hee. 65, quin . . . laceres quemque nacta sis. 

Heaut. 721, quasi non ea potestas sit tua quo uelis 
in tempore ut te exsoluas. 

Men. 549, ut quantum possint quique liceant 
ueneant. 

Cato, R. R. 2, reliqua quae sent ut compareant. 

Cato, R. R. 2, quae supersint uti ueneant. 


F. Depending upon Independent Expressions of Wish. 


qui. Asin. 44, di tibi dent quaequomque optes. 

Trin. 713, bene quod agas eueniat tibi. 

Phorm. 552, di bene uortant guod agas. So also 
Hee. 197.) 

Epid. 6,1 di dent quae uelis. (So also Pers. 483; 
Poen. 1055; Stich. 469; Trin. 1152.) 

Trin. 487, di duint tibi quaequomque optes. 

Afranius 358, di tibi dent propria quaequomque 
exoptes. 


G. Depending upon Another Anticipatory Subjunctwe. 


cum. Heaut. 544, (expectat) dum hie denuo abeat quom 
tolerare illius sumptus non queat. 
qui. Poen. 747, quam ... quod loquantur creduam. 


1This expression and its equivalents are often used in salutations and 
seem to refer to the future. Interesting varieties of it are found in Asin. 
623, dabunt di quae uelitis, and in Pers. 16, dabunt di quae exoptes, which 
betray the tense-tone of the expression. Here welitis and ewoptes are evidently 
in the anticipatory subjunctive, and depend in both instances upon dabunt, 
which is virtually a future imperative. 


THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 21 


H. Depending upon Potential Subjunctiwes. 


dum. Phorm. 1030, habet haec ei quod dum uiuat usque 
ad aurem obganniat. 

qui. Cas. 256, ubi educat pueros quos pariat. 

cum. Afranius 199, sf 


Non usque quaque idoneum inuenias locum —~ 
Ubi derepente cum uelis facias lutum. 


ubi. Eun. 1080, facile pellas ubz uelis. if a 
I. Depending upon Conditional Subjunctives. 
cum. Men. 454, qui nisi adsint quom citentur census 
capiat ilico. 
Poen. 27, ne uarientur uirgis . . . si minus curas- 


sint guom eri reuenvant domum. 
True. 234, nisi modo quom dederit dare iam lubeat 


denuo. 

quando. Mere. 406, flagitium sit si sequatur quando imcedat 
per wlas. 

ubt. Poen. 148, ubi dissolutus tu sies, ego pendeam. 


J. Depending upon Clauses of Result. 


cum. Andr. 394, patri dic uelle, ut quom uelit tibi iure 
irasci non queat. 
Phorm. 822, quas quom res aduorsae sint, paulo 
mederi possis. : 
Accius 337, nunquam erit tam immanis cum non 
mea opera extinctum scat quin fragescat. 
dum. Heaut. 951, adeo exornatum dabo... ut dum 
uvuat meminerit. 


K. Depending upon Indirect Questions of Futurity. 


qua. Eun. 790, qui scis an quae iubeam sine ui faciat ? 
L. Depending upon an Indirect Question of Doubt. 
cum. Mere. 344, neque is guom roget quid loquar cogita- 


tumst. 


22 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


InpicatTives (Future ok Present—Future) Depenprine Upon 
Sussunetives. (Not attracted.) 


qui. M. G. 573, post hac etiam illud quod scies, nesci- 

ueris. Asin. 781, deam inuocet sibi quam lubebit. 

Pers. 524, suo periculo is emat qui eam merca- 

bitur. Rud. 486, qui homo sese miserum uolet 

Neptuno credat. sese. Cato, R. R. 8, qui eum 

. . » habebit, paret. Cato, R. R. 22, uti expleas 

quod interest. Cato, R. R. 31, quae opus erunt 

parentur. Cato, R. R. 70, ieiunus siet qui dabit. 

Cato, R. R. 89, gallinas teneras quae primum 

parient concludat. Cato, R. R. 32, rami ut 

_diuaricentur quos relinques. Cato, R. R. 103, 

qui fastidient cibum ut . . . adpetant . . . spar- 

gito. Cato, R.R.142, ut quae opus sunt, parentur. 

Most. 1095, ne huc confugere possint quaestioni 

quos dabit. Amph. 608, caue quicquam nisi 

quod rogabo te mihi responderis. Bacch. 989, uolo 

ut quod iubebo facias. M. G. 254, inducamus 

uera ut esse credat quae mentabimur. Cur. 4382, 

quaeso qui has tabellas adferet ut ei detur. M. 
G. 81, qui auscultare nolet, exsurgat foras, 

cum. Cato, R. R. 23, quom pluet, quala parentur. Cato, 

R. R. 25, quom uinum coctum erit facito ut ser- 

uetur. Cato, R. R. 40, quom praecides caueto ne 

librum conuellas. Cato, R. R. 45, ne liber laboret 

cum dolabis. Cato, R. R. 45, ne librum scindas 

cum adiges. Cato, R. R. 54, ne sectentur cum 

arabunt. Pseud. 163, haeec quom reuortor facite 

ut offendam parata. M. G. 1176, quom extemplo 

hoe erit factum, facito ut uenias. Mer. 146, ne 

laborem capias quom illo uti uoles. Rud. 1206, 

adorna ut rem diuinam faciam, quom aduenero. 

Asin. 372, mox quom Saurean imitabor, caueto ne 

suscenseas. Amph. 197, meditabor quo modo 

dicam quom aduenero. Bacch. 826, ut auferam 

quom illum rescisces. Hee. 575, uereor ne orata 

nostra nequeat celare quom sciet. Hec. 769, 





OF TAE 
( UNIVERSITY 


OF 
CAL iForn\s 


THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 23 


quom tu eris satura ut puer satur sit facito. M. 
G. 811, ut cum hic agit, actutum partis defendas 
tuas. 

ub. Cato, R. R. 86, ubi coctum erit lacte addat. Cato, 
R. R. 156, ubi libido ueniet . . . decumbat. 
Cato, R. R. 156, ubi uersus ibit heminam... 
bibat. Cato, R. R. 95, ubi erit crassum... 
sinito frigescat. Pers. 86, curate ... ne mihi 
morae sit ubi intro aduenero. SBacch. 36, ubi me 
fugiet memoria . . . facito ut subuenias. Capt. 
342, ubi erunt indutiae illuc, qui conueniat pa- 
trem. Epid. 595, ubi noles, ne fueris pater. 
Pers. 384, uideto, me ubi uoles nuptum dare, ne 
faciat. 

quando. Most. 403, neu quisquam responset quando aedis 
pultabit. Bacch. 224, ueniat quando uolt. Hee. 
619, utrum illaec fecerint quando haec aberit. 
Aul. 78, ut faciam litteram longam, meum laqueo 
collum quando obstrinxero. Poen. 1409, quando 
ex neruo emissu’s, compingare in carcerem. 

quotiens. Cato, R. R. 151, quotiens opus erit, purges. Cato, 
R. R. 151, quotienscumque opus erit facito ut 


addas. 
quo. Cato, R. R. 21, ne foramina maiora fiant quo inden- 
tur. Men. 1044, dicam ut abeat liber quo uolet. 
quam. Cato, R. R. 66, quam diligentissime poterit, tollat. 
dum Rud. 779, ego dum abes ut abeat non sinam. 


(= while). Rud. 558, tibi copiast dum lingua uiuet qui rem 
soluas. Poen. 1421, dum auctionem facio opust 


ut maneas. 
dum Rud. 880, suadeo ut ad nos abeant potius, dum re- 
(= until). cipis. Truc. 874, ut... sinas... dum ali- 


quo miles circumducitur. Phorm. 513, ut me 
maneat ... triduom hoc dum id... aufero. 
Eun. 894, uin interea dum uenit domi opperi- 
amur? Rud. 773, oro ut illas serues ... dum 
ego erum adduco meum. M. G. 1333, ne inter- 
ueneris quaeso, dum resipiscit. Adel. 786, nisi 
. . . dum haee silescunt, abeam. 


24 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


priusquam pid. 304, ne abitas priusquam ego ad te uenero. 
antequam. Bacch. 381, priusquam malum istoc addis cer- 
tumst dicam. Cato, R. R. 161, ne ante sarueris 
quam asparagus natus erit. Asin. 448, nune 
adeam optimust priusquam incipit  tinnire. 
Phorm. 719, ut conueniat hane priusquam hine 
abit. Phorm. 898, priusquam dilapidat .. ut 
auferamus. M. G. 1408, obsecro...te... 
ut audias priusquam secat. Andr. 558, prius- 
quam ... redducunt animum, uxorem demus. 
Poen. 1399, ut minam ... reddas priusquam 
. abducere. Bacch. 440, at... priusquam 
septuennis est, si attingas eum. 
donec. Cato, R. R. 86, lacte addat donec crassus erit factus. 
Bacch. 758,°ne quoquam exsurgatis donec a me 
erit signum datum. 


Before we draw conclusions from these tables, a word of warn- 
ing must be given. It will be noticed that the usage of Cato 
diverges noticeably from that of the other early writers, a fact 
which is easily understood by the reader of the De Re Rustica. 
When Cato has once fairly entered his subject, his work becomes 
practically a string of sentences shaped after this mould: quom 
(ubi, si, ete.) ... erit, facito, with remarkable monotony. 
There are over three hundred sentences of this form in the little 
volume. Naturally, then, the future indicative becomes so fixed 
in the dependent clause, that one could hardly expect it to be 
attracted to the subjunctive when, for any reason, a jussive sub- 
junctive is used instead of an imperative in the main clause. 
That I am right in saying that the future indicative becomes fixed, 
is proved by the fact that in the first few chapters, several cases 
of attraction occur before the use of the regularly recurring future 
indicative with the imperative becomes noticeable; after that they 
are remarkably rare. I would also add that conclusions drawn 
from my lists in regard to priusquam-, dum-, and si-clauses, would 
be erroneous if accepted without modification (see pp. 52-5). 
After dum = until, it is customary to classify the verbs as inher- 
ently subjunctive; but the very fact that about sixty per cent. of 
the verbs after dum = until are in the indicative! in early Latin, 

1Hale-Buck, Grammar, 571, and footnote, for the explanation of this fact. 








THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 25 


and that over half of those which are in the subjunctive are also in 
dependence upon subjunctives and infinitives, goes to show that 
many of the latter must be due to attraction. In general the same 
condition of things obtains with the priusquam-clauses. With 
si-clauses, the feeling of the less vivid future is so subtile in early 
Latin that, in the majority of cases where the present subjunctive 
is found with si in dependence upon another subjunctive, I believe 
it is impossible to say with certainty whether the writer would 
have used an indicative, if the clause had not been thus dependent 
(see p. 54). In cases of this class, accordingly, it must be under- 
stood that the list of subjunctives is not as complete as that of the 
indicatives. 

A fair comparison of the two uses may be made in the temporal 
clauses with cum, ubi, and quando, as well as in the qui-clauses 
of Plautus and Terence. The following table will show a marked 
preponderance of the subjunctive in clauses which refer to the 
future and depend upon another subjunctive. 


cum, ubé. quando, qui. Total, 
Subjunctive 40 15 8 35 98 
Indicative 10 5 5 10 30 


This proportion of the subjunctive to the indicative becomes sig- 
nificant when one finds that, in early Latin, attraction is rather 
the exception than the rule, and that about thirty-five per cent. of 
the clauses which, so far as function and position are concerned, 
are capable of being attracted, are in fact so affected. The tense, 
therefore, is significant; and the examination has confirmed the 
theory that the anticipatory subjunctive was still a force in Latin 
during the time of Plautus. If then it is found to “ supply a large 
factor to the development of attraction,” it will readily be seen 
from the list just given that the factor is exceedingly important, 
for this class alone makes up about 55 per cent. of all the early 
Latin verbs that are usually classed as subjunctives by attraction 
in the grammars. 
E. 

The note quoted above (p. 4) from Professor Hale’s paper 
on the Anticipatory Subjunctive gives a good illustration, from 
conditional sentences, of the kind of verb now under discussion: 
C. I. L., I, 196: Sei quis esent quer sibei dewerent necesus ese 


26 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


Bacanal habere. Cf. Trin. 472, siquid tibi placeat quod illi con- 
gestum siet, edisne? in which the conditional feeling is nearly as 
strong in the quod-clause as in the si-clause. In the following 
there is more or less of the conditional feeling. It will be noticed 
that the dependent clause in the second example is, strictly speak- 
ing, in grammatical dependence upon the apodosis of the sentence, 
that is, upon a subjunctive of Ideal Certainty. Quod uideas is 
equivalent to si quid uideas. 


Amph. 871, Nam mea sit culpa quod egomet contrarervm 
Si id Alcumenae innocenti expetat. 


Men. 111, Ni mala, ni stulta sis... 
Quod uiro esse odio uideas tute tibi odio habeas. 


There are numerous examples like the following: 
Capt. 205, At pigeat postea nostrum erum si uos eximat uin- 
culis aut solutos sinat quos argento emerit, 
in which there is a break in time-sphere, and the dependent clause, 
if emphasis were given to its actual time-feeling, would not be in 
the subjunctive; but the speaker for the moment conceives of the 
act from the ideal rather than the actual point of view, and ex- 
presses this feeling by using the same mood as in the si-clause. 
Cf. Bacch. 778, Ni facta cupiam quae is welit (strictly, “ what 
he now wishes”; ideally, ‘‘ whatever he may wish”) tua iam 
uirgis latera lacerentur probe. See also Curc., 269; Bacch., 564; 
Hec., 555. 
F. 


In the same way a clause depending upon a subjunctive of 
Ideal Certainty may, strictly speaking, state a general truth or an 
objective fact, and at the same time express that fact ideally, that 
is, with the same mental attitude with which the rest of the clause 
is uttered. The dependent verb is thus thrown into the same mood 
and tense with the verb on which it depends. A case in point in 
the present tense may be seen in Cis, 497, quodcumque optes tibi 
uelim contingere, “ if you should desire a thing, I should like you 
to have it.” Contrast Cure. 82, Nam istunc qui fert afflictum 
uelim. The following is an example of a clause depending upon 
a verb contrary to fact: Bacch. 488, si opperiri uellem... , 
plus uiderem quam deceret, “ more than would be fitting,” instead 








THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 27 


of “ more than is fitting.” Contrast Adel. 108, si homo esses, si- 
neres nunc facere dum per aetatem licet. Deceret has to my mind 
the same tone as widerem. The same relation holds true in the 
dependent clause of the following in Rud. 1261, dum praedam 
habere se censeret, interim praeda ipsus esset. 

In the following, on the other hand, we seem to have a clear 
ease of attraction: Poen. 681, uidere equidem uos uellem quom 
huie aurum darem, “I should like to have you see when I give him 
the money.” The fact seems to be that, after conditional subjunc- 
tives and subjunctives of ideal certainty, Latin freely conceives 
of the subordinate act from the ideal point of view, unless the fact 
of its objective reality is to be emphasized, as in Aul. 482, inuidia 
nos minore utamur quam utimur,or unless its time-sphere is clearly 
different from that of the governing clause, as in Asin. 860, nun- 
quam faceret ea quae nunc facit. Complete lists of examples may 
be found on pp. 40-1. 

G. 


The indirect question was evidently passing through an im- 
portant change in the time of Plautus. We need not here discuss 
the process of the change; suffice it to say that the subjunctive 
was coming to be the mood for these expressions, and that a feel- 
ing was arising which demanded the subjunctive for all indirectly 
quoted questions; and when the quotation included a dependent 
clause, this too naturally came to be put into the same mood if 
it was felt to be an integral part of the original question. Thus, 
in the following sentence, Merc. 623, quin percontatu’s, hominis 
quae facies foret qui illam emisset? the quoted question includes 
a relative clause, and the whole question “ hominis quae facies erat 
qui illam amiserat ” is thrown into the subjunctive. or the sake 
of comparison, I quote the following, in which the relative clause 
is not conceived of as a part of the quotation: Trin. 7, quae illaec 
siet hue quae abiit intro dicam. 

I would suggest that the origins of attraction in clauses of this 
sort go even deeper, and that the so-called relative clause in many 
instances was still, as in its origin, actually felt as an interroga- 
tive in dependence upon the main verb of the sentence. I mean 


1Cf. Sommer, Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formlehre, 293: 
Hervorgegangen ist die relativ Funktion hauptsichlich aus den indirekten 


28 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


that in a sentence like the following: Aul. 29, Is scit quae sit 
quam compresserit, the speaker may have felt practically the two 
questions, quis est? quam compressit? Compare Poen. 1027, 
Narra, quid est, quid ait! ibid. 711, Quid est? quid uoltis, tes- 
tes? It must be noted that in the example quoted, the interroga- 
tive feminine becomes quae in the indirect quotation, though in 
the direct question it would be quis as a substantive in Plautus. 
This fact would facilitate confusion between the relative and in- 
terrogative in the case of the feminine pronouns. In the case of 
the masculine, since qui and quis' both occurred frequently as in- 
terrogatives, there must have been frequent confusion. Of course, 
in the majority of indirect questions, the possibility of interpret- 
ing the dependent relative clause as an interrogative is precluded 
by the unmistakable nature of the clause. It is entirely out of 
the question in sentences like the following, as a glance will suffice 
to show: Pseud. 451, quanto satius est . . . exquaerere sint illa 
necne sint quae tibi renuntiant; Aul. 17, Coepi obseruari ecqui 
maiorem filius mihi honorem haberet quam eius habwisset pater. 
Sentences like the following, however, would allow the possibility : 
Amph. 1016, pergam exquirere quis fuerit quem propter corpus 
suom stupri compleuerit; M. G. 261, hominem inuestigando 
operam huic . . . dabo qui fuerit conseruous qui hodie sit sectatus 
simiam. 
Fragesitzen, die ja oft der Bedeutung von Relativsitzen sehr nahe kommen. 
Delbriick, Vergleichende Syntax, III, p. 403, illustrates well the ambiguity of 
some relatives. He says: Das Relativum entsteht in abhingigen Fragen. 
Es giebt viele abhiingige Fragesiitze, in welchen man das Pronomen ebenso gut 
interrogativisch wie relativisch auffassen kann z. B. concrepuit ostium, 
videamus, qui hine egreditur Men. 348, ‘sehen wir nach, wer kommt hier 
heraus?’ oder ‘sehen wir nach dem, der hierauskommt.’ The literature on 
the question of the relation of the relative pronoun to the interrogative and 
indefinite pronouns can be found by means of the list of references in 
Delbriick, ibid., p. 400. 

1Cf. Truc. 708. Nune speculabor quid ibi agatur, quis eat intro, qui foras 
ueniat. Cf. also Sommer, Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formlehre, 
293: Fiir die Flexion machte urspriinglich der Bedeutungsunterschied nichts 
aus, das Paradigma war fiir alle drei Verwendungen dasselbe. In R. R. 145, 
homines eos dato, qui placebunt aut custodi aut quis eam oleam emerit, Cato 
uses quis as a relative. What has been said in this paragraph must, however, 
apply to written rather than spoken sentences, for I am aware of the 


fact that the stress of an interrogative pronoun is often not that of a relative. 
Cf. Seyffert, Berl. Phil. Woch., 1891, p. 108. 








THE SOURCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 29 


We have also noticed (p. 21) that the anticipatory indirect 
questions must be reckoned with in this account, if we are right 
in supposing that their force will help to account for the mood of 
verbs like adimat in the following: Phorm. 161, expecto quam 
mox ueniat gut adimat hanc mihi consuetudinem. 


SuMMARY. 


We have now examined the more objective forces which were 
at work in developing the construction in question, and with our 
eye upon the facts so far found, are ready to make a partial state- 
ment in regard to what attraction is and what it is not. It has 
become clear, I think, that attraction is more than a “‘ Streben nach 
Concinnitat des Ausdrucks ” (Draeger, I, p. 316) in each indi- 
vidual instance,—it is not even a habit which springs purely and 
simply from such a streben (“‘ hervorgegangen,” ibid.). The 
phrase ‘‘ Streben nach Concinnitaét ” implies a feeling for style 
which comes with a highly developed prose, and I fear definitions 
like the one just quoted come from an examination of attraction 
as used by Cicero in his best prose,—where it actually merges into 
such an “ effort at concinnity,’”—and not from an historical study 
of the construction. This is rather a habit which took shape under 
the influence of the several similar constructions that we have dis- 
cussed in the preceding, and it worked outward from those definite 
starting-points along the lines governed by the laws of analogy. 
True it is that in the examples of the original type, the subjunc- 
tive of the dependent clause was due to the fact that this clause 
happened to contain the same modal feeling as the governing 
clause. But in the growing construction of attraction proper, 
identity of mental attitude is not a sine qua non of its occurrence. 
Attraction then appears to be in the main a phenomenon of nat- 
ural linguistic evolution which falls under the category of analogy 
working mechanically, rather than of a conscious (or unconscious) 
mental attitude’ connected with stylistic considerations. As we 
have seen, its origins are found in the language, not of artistic 


1I have been careful to say that this is only a “ partial statement,” for I 
fully understand the danger of neglecting the element of wuyix7 didOeore in the 
discussion of a construction as subjective as this. There are psychological 
considerations that must be taken into account before the final definition is 
given. I shall have something to say on this point in a later paper. 


, 


30 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


prose, but of such prose as we find in Early Latin. They neces- 
sarily belong, of course, to the post-paratactic period, but to that 
part of the period while style was still quite simple and unadorned. 
The very fact that these origins are to be placed in a fairly well- 
developed stage of the language, and yet before the feeling for the 
intricate and finely wrought periods of Cicero’s day arises, is a 
matter of great significance, and again points to the same conclu- 
sion, that the construction is not to be traced to considerations of 
style. 

What the real genetic forces were we have pointed out in the 
preceding pages, and have illustrated them by sentences in which 
the dependent clause directly expressed the same feeling as the 
independent clause, or a feeling kindred to it. These sentences 
we have found in connection with the following subjunctives: 
Jussive, Permissive, Deliberative (and its extensions), Dependent 
Volitive, Optative, Subjunctive of Obligation or Propriety, An- 
ticipatory (present-future and past-future), Conditional Subjunc- 
tive, Subjunctive of Ideal Certainty, and Subjunctive in Indirect 
Questions. In other words, the origins of this construction are 
found to exist in connection with almost every kind of subjunctive 
of any importance in Early Latin, and the actual instances of the 
original kind are there found to be more than half of the verbs 
usually considered as cases of attraction. 








CHAPTER II. 
Tue Usres or THE Construction, TaBLeEs. 


Having discussed the genesis of the construction, we must now 
see how it behaved, how far it extended, and what forces opposed 
its workings. 

I shall first give a list of subjunctives attracted by volitives in 
the primary clause, placing in a parallel column unattracted verbs 
of the same general nature, for convenience of comparison. I 
shall group these with reference to the relative closeness of time 
between the dependent and independent verbs, for we have already 
seen that a shift of time-sphere is a most important consideration 
in the matter of attraction. The remaining groups will then be 
treated in the same way in their proper order. 

It is also necessary to note that identity of osanauaal tense 
does not by any means imply identity of actual time. A univer- 
sal present may, for instance, depend upon a present volitive sub- 
junctive; both may be in the present subjunctive, while, in respect 
to actual time, the volitive is future, and its subordinate verb is 
present. Of course, for the moment the speaker may be in the 
future attitude of mind with regard to both verbs, but he is not 
necessarily so. This general consideration must be applied to 
verbs in the other tenses as well. 

_ The following tables do not contain the verbs which refer to ‘the 
future, as a full list of these has been given. On the other hand, 
I have included the examples of the “ subjunctive of like feeling ” 
‘even, when they have already been listed in the preceding, for 
it is of course quite impossible to state in any given case that the 
force of mechanical attraction was not at work. For past-futures 
see p. 12. Except in the case of indirect questions, where I found 
it necessary to give complete statistics, I have excluded the verbs 
which were clearly in indirect discourse—explicit or “ implied.” 
Such verbs usually depend upon clauses introduced by impero, 


postulo, ete., or by causal quod. 
31 


quando. 


32 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


Group I. 


IN WHICH THE MAIN VERB IS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF WILL OR WISH. 


1. BoTH THE GOVERNING AND THE DEPENDENT VERBS ARE IN THE 


PRESENT TENSE. 


Dependent verb not attracted 
(Indicative). 


Dependent verb attracted (Sub- 
junctive). 


(a) The governing verb is independent. 


Rud. 1229, habeas quod di 
dant. Asin. 644, facias quod 
suades. Baceh. 990c, tubeo; 
Asin. 180, lubet; Cist. 768, est; 
Bacch. 993, tubeo; Most. 594, 
est; Trin. 351, habes; Trin. 979, 
lubet; Andr. 393, facis; Heaut. 
17%, excruciat; Eun. 78, habet; 
Hec. 810, refert; Adel. 622, 
placet; Men. 349, egreditur; 
Capt. 609, wolt; Aul. 542, ha- 
bent; Men. 353, est; M. G. 1054, 
oro; Andr. 697, wolunt; Heaut. 
464, lubet; Eun. 529, uolt; Truc. 
233, habent; Cato, R. R. 4, mu- 
tant; Aul. 776, uolt; Cure. 180, 
est; Merc. 991, wolt; Most. 222, 
uolunt; Most. 306, gaudent; 
Pers. 373, uolé; Afranius, 407, 
lubet; Cato, Frag. p. 79, opus 
est, necesse est. Phorm. 519 es; 
Phorm. 165, amo; Heaut. 589, 
extrudis; Hee. 579, exopto; Hee. 
469, nuntiant; Men. 308, habi- 
tant; Asin. 841, uolunt; Eun. 
665, uolunt; Andr. 931, spero; 
Pseud. 108, dicis; Rud. 158, 
guaero; Rud. 992, habet; Stich. 
320, refert. 

Truc. 163, ubi mortuost quies- 
cat. 

Trin. 671, coptast. 


Capt. 548, ne tu quod. istic 
fabuletur auris immittas tuas. 

Most. 1100, guod agas id agas. 

Pseud. 570, det locum illi gua 
queat. 

Bacch. 
queat. 

Lucil. 572, concedat homini id 
quod ueltt. 

M. G. 1038, di tibi 
gquaequomque optes. 


656, furetur quod 


dent 





THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, TABLES. 


Most. 871, quom impluit ne 
impluat mi. Bacch. 536, adue- 
nis; Capt. 355, honestas; M. G. 
1419, ades; Poen. 668, datis; 
Poen. 687, wis; Adel. 918, uwideo; 
Trin. 671, est. 

Truc. 127, aduenis. 

Mere. 553, dum potes ames; 
Truc. 163, wiutt. 

Asin. 731, nune ut est elo- 
quamur; Adel. 399, est; Tur- 
pilius 191, meres. 


Stich. 44, nos faciant quam 
aequomst. 
Aul. 785, di quantumst per- 


duint; Heaut. 870, est; Pseud. 


37, est. 
Cato, R. R. 1, ambulant. 


(6) The governing 


Aul. 576, quod habeo ut com- 
mutet; Aul. 546, sospitent quod 
nune habes; Amph. 870, accusat; 
Amph. 970, opust; Capt. 329, 
sentio; Capt. 908, pendent; Cas. 
311, postulas; Cas. 512, para- 
tumst; Cist. 632, oportet; Cist. 


13, arbitrar; Cure. 159, agimus; 


Epid. 268, wolt; Epid. 456, adue- 
nio; Men. 427, wolo; Men. 558, 
dant; Men. 955, opus est; Mer. 
937, expetis; M. G. 728-9, pro- 
bast, improbast; M. G. 945, 
agendumst; Most. 903, mulcet; 
Pseud. 12, nescio; Pseud. 168, 
ibist; Stich. 26, metuis; Truc. 
722, wolo; Andr. 339, est; Trin. 
654, habes; Heaut. 867, cupis; 
Hee. 325, est; Adel. 706, sunt; 
Lucil. 36, impendet; Lucil. 440, 


33 


Amph. 960, eri ut sint, ipse 
item sit. 

Bacch. 661, utcumque res sit 
ita animum habeat. 

Hee. 634, turbent quam uelint. 


Pseud. 936, tantum tibi boni 
di duint quantum tu tibi exoptes. 


Aul. 491, quo lubeant nubant. 


verb is dependent. 


Cas. 252, domuisti animum ut 
quod uir weltt fieri id facias? 

Epid. 283, iam amota ei fuerit 
omnis consultatio nuptiarum ne 
grauetur quod welis. 

Pers. 601, ut tibi percontari 
liceat quae uelis. 

Trin. 221, pauci sint faxim 


gui sciant. 

Amph. 630, ut quae imperes 
compareant. 

Men. 994, Caue quisquam 


quod illic minttetur flocci fecerit. 

M. G. 41, ut praeolat mihi 
quod tu uelis. 

Pseud. 207, faciant aduersum 
eos quod nolint. 

Phorm. 125, ut orbae qui stint 
genere proximi eis nubant. 


dum. 


34 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


intellego; Cato, R. R. 14, sunt; 
Amph. 879, grauidast; Aul. 251, 
uis; Bacch. 863, publicat; Cas. 
10%, diperis; Cas. 206, lubet; 
Cas. 239, decent; Asin. 256, so- 
lent; Cure. 34, palamst; M. G. 
227%, sunt; M. G. 1050, cupit; 
Pers. 74, oppugnant; Pers. 372, 
licet; Trin. 341, uis; Trin. 641, 
promeres; Phorm. 42, habent; 
Phorm. 533, dandumst; Hee. 
674, nolo; Hee. 768, opust; Adel. 
54, faciunt; Adel. 511, potes. 
Pacuu. 282, rogo; Turpil. 146, 
uolo; <Accius, 509, accolunt; 
Cato, R. R. 23, sunt; Cur. 428, 
peto; Trin. 979, uolo; Andr. 825, 
cupis; M. G. 1229, amo; Pers. 
293, optas; Rud. 1256, est. 

Eun. 537, amabo ut illuc tran- 
seas wht tllast. 

Hee. 385, cum orata eius re- 
miniscor nequeo quin lacrumem; 
Mere. 178, guom malum audien- 
dumst flagitas me ut eloquar. 


M. G. 595, ne dum absum sor- 
titae fiat; M. G. 1317, dat; Rud. 
123, sudumst; Adel. 312, est; 
Pseud. 922, dormit; Asin. 914, 
litigant; Asin. 531, expectamus; 
Andr. 556-7, datur. 

Andr. 623, ut sumam suppli- 
cium ut wolo; Amph. 559, sunt; 
Amph. 982, intellegis; Cas. 158, 
est; Men. 861, minatur; Merc. 
989, uolt; Phorm. 1020, sunt. 

M. G. 1086, ne magis sim pul- 
cher guam sum; Asin. 268, Lu- 
bentiast; Heaut. 681, uolt; M. G. 


Adel. 711, ne imprudens fa- 
ciam forte quod nolit, sciens 
cauebo. 

Trin. 211, non flocci faciunt 
dum illud quod lubeat sciant. 

Andr. 306, quaeso . . . id uelis 
quod possit. | 

Cure. 29, ne id quod ames . . 
tibi sit probro. 

M. G. 1230, quod cupiam ne 
grauetur. 

Rud. 874, ut id quod quaerant 
inueniant. 


Andr. 160, ut consumat nunc 
qguom nil obsint doli. 

M. G. 1342, nequeo quin fleam 
gquom abs te abeam. 

Bacch. 907, ut eum castigem 
guom haec facta ad hune faciat 
modum. 

Poen. 884, (metus) dwm ero 
insidias paritem ne me perduim. 


Capt. 343, alium misero—qui 
tua mandata ita ut welts perferat. 


Pers. 237, nunquam extere- 
brabis, tu ut sis pelor guam ego 
stem. 











THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, TABLES. 35 


2, solent; Truc. 63, sunt; Men. Hee. 729, ne minus hinc im- 
192, impetrant ; Poen. 694, solent; petrem quam possiem. 
Capt. 443, sum. 

Bacch. 348, ut conueniam quan- = Andr. 577, is mihi suadet nup- 
tum potest; Heaut. 645, est; tias quantum queam ut maturem. 
Pseud. 938, dignu’s. 

Pseud. 470, ut possint quo uolo. 


2. BoTH VERBS ARE IN THE IMPERFECT TENSE. 


Kun. 574, ut essem unaguacum Mere. 152, rupi currendo ut 
cupiebam ; Epid. 47, mandauit ut quae scirem scire tibi liceret. 
fidicina quam amabat emeretur Bacch. 788, orabat quod istic 
sibi. esset scriptum ut fieret. — 

Cist. 85, ut me quem ego 
amarem sineret cum eo uiuere. 

Bacch. 674, occasio ... fuit 

. ut quantum uelles tantum 

sumeres. : 

' Phorm. 733," ut facerem egestas 

me impulit guom scirem infirmas 
nuptias hasce esse. : 


3. BOTH VERBS ARE IN THE PERFECT TENSE. 
M. G. 588, quin id adimatur ne M. G. 149, faciemus ut quod 
id quod widit uiderit; Poen. 951, widerit ne uiderit. 
uent; Pers. 478, credidt. 
Kun. 82, uereor ne aliorsum M. G. 370, numquam deterre- 
atque ego fect acceperit. bor quin uiderim id quod w- 
derim. 


4, THE GOVERNING VERB IN THE PRESENT TENSE WITH THE DEPEND- 
ENT VERB IN A DIFFERENT TENSE. 


(a) The dependent verb in the perfect tense. 
1) The governing verb independent. 

Aul. 433, utinam auferam quae Cato, R. R. 5, quae dominus 
tuli; Poen. 193, hoc agamus quod ¢mperauerit fiant. 
cepimus; Truc. 9, wuentumst; Ibid. quod dominus crediderit 
Men. 1104, pollicitu’s; Men. 451,  exigat. 
commentust; M. G. 1010, sum 
agressa; M. G. 1100, instruaisti ; 


1The mood of scirem may be due to the adversative force of the clause. 


ut and com- 


36 


Heaut. 31, fecit; Heaut. 745, at- 
tulerunt; M. G. 1127, instruzisti ; 
Eun. 302, remoratust; Plaut. 
Frag. 21, and Aquilius. 1, rep- 
perit; Naeu. 19, protultt. 

Trin. 63, and Truc. 844, habeas 
ut nactu’s. 

Poen. 208, obtultsts. 

Cato, R. R. 7, salutautt. 


ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


2) The governing verb dependent. 


Amph. 291, imperauit; Amph. 
948, nout; Aul. 278 tmperauit; 
Capt. 515, orauisti; Cas. 503, 
mandaut; Cas. 512, condiut; 
Men. 445, tmperatumst; Men. 
686, commist; Men. 991, tm- 
peraut; Men. 1057, fecistt; Merc. 
669, fugit; M. G. 949, conduat; 
Pseud. 639, missus sum; Rud. 
587%, potauw; Trin. 1123, egi; 
Truc. 893, perdidt; Amph. 629, 
imperaut; Asin. 38, locutu’s; 
Aul. 671, fectt; Cure. 272, por- 
tentumst; Cure. 433, emt; Bacch. 
1020, obiurtgautt; Men. 672, 
dedi; Cure. 464, locaut; Most. 
416, turbauimus; Pers. 613, tus- 
sit; Trin. 141, concredttumst; 
Heaut. 1067, fecit; Hec. 54, com- 
mistt. 

Trin. 616, euorttt. 

Merc. 425, dum ne minoris uen- 
das quam emi; Men. 1033, fut. 

Men. 1146, ut tusit; Pers. 616, 
ut accept. 

Naeu. 7, ut est; Pseud. 1020, 
ut fuit; Pacuuius 297, ut ego egt, 
ago, axim; M. GQ. 25%, eworst 
sumus; Phorm. 31, ust sumus. 


Phorm. 845, ut haec quae con- 
tigerint sciat. 

Most. 413, quae dissignata sint 
. . . tranguille cuncta ut proue- 
niant. 

Trin. 1105, iubeto Sagarionem 
quae imperauerim curare ut ef- 
ferantur. 

Phorm. 272, non causam dico 
quin guod meritus sit ferat. 

Heaut. 1040, ut serues quod 
labore inuenertt. 

Poen. 7, ut... 
gut wuenerint. 


sedeant ... 


Rud. 1242, ut cum maiore dote 
abeat quam aduenerit. 














qui 
quam. 


qui. 


priusquam, 


qui. 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, TABLES. 37 


(6) The dependent verb in the imperfect or pluperfect tense. 
Aul. 33, quo facilius ducat qui 
compresserat; Capt. 939, reli- 
queram; M. G. 132, fuerat; Men. 
426, dederam; Cas. 514, erat. 
Andr. 543, fuerant. 
Capt. 247, seruibas. 


5. THE GOVERNING VERB IN A PAST TENSE WITH THE DEPENDENT VERB 
IN A DIFFERENT TENSE. 


(a) The dependent verb in the present tense. 
Andr. 583, ne faceres quod uol- 
gus solet; Andr. 793, ut sciret 
quae uolumus; Bacch. 689, lo- 
quar; Pers. 433, factunt; Phorm. 
656, debeo. 
Eun. 93, dolet; Trin. 375, re- 
percis. Merc. 427, est. 


(6) The dependent verb tn the perfect tense. 
Cas. 933, ut quo ego bibi, bi- 
beret; Mere. 230, ne noceret 
quam habut; M. G. 74, const- 
gnaw; M. G. 186, uidit; Pseud. 
72, sctut. 
Rud. 498, adduzisit. 
Capt. 537, peruste. 


(c) The dependent verb in the pluperfect tense. 


Capt. 720, ut melius consu- Cure. 550, tuom qui signum 
lerem tibi quam illi guicum... ad me attulisset nuntium ne 
exegeram. spernerem. 


Group II. 
IN WHICH THE MAIN VERB IS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF DELIBERA- 
TION OR AN EXTENSION OF IT. 
(a) The main verb is a subjunctive of deliberation. 
Hee. 445, quo pacto celem quod 
me orauit; Stich. 675, habito; 
Eun. 1046, fuit; M. G. 199, widit. 


qui. 


qui. 


38 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


(6) The main verb is a subjunctive of ‘* surprise, remonstrance, or 
indignation.’’ 


Eun, 47, non eam guom accen- 
sor? 


Bacch. 66, penetrem whi desu- 
dascitur! 

Asin. 94, Ten defrudam quoi 
est/? Asin. 885, habet; Men. 560, 
domist; Men. 763, expetit ; Most. 
301, cupio? Heaut. 784, daturus 
sum; Andr. 271, credidit! Adel. 
677, weneram ? 


[cf. p. 9. Most. 896, Heaut. 
413-15; Hee. 341; Andr. 944; 
Bacch. 286; 1192; Trin. 733; 
Epid. 588; Men. 560-1; Bacch. 
1190; Phorm. 970-2. ] 


Phorm. 970, ubi quae lubitum 
fuertt peregre feceris.. . 
uenias! cf. p. %. 2 

Mere. 702, em quoi tua quae 
habeas commendes uiro! | 

Most. 494,? mirum quin uigi- 
lanti diceret qui... occisus 
foret. 

Pers. 340,2 mirum quin regis 
Philippi causa... potius uen- 
dam quam mea guae sis mea. 


Group III. 


IN WHICH THE MAIN VERB IS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF ‘‘ OBLIGATION 
OR PROPRIETY.’’ 


(a) Both verbs are in the present tense. 


M. G. 55,quid . . . dicam quod 
omnes sciunt? Phorm. 345, ea 
gut praebet, non hunc habeas . . . 
deum ? 


[See p. 10 and Hec. 658; Eun. 
566; Amph. 434, etc.] 

Hee. 760, . meritus .. . est 
quod queam ut commodem. 

Men. 1067, ut pigeat quae welts. 

Men. 1100, promeruisti ut ne- 
quid ores quod uelis. 


1 There are a great number of verbs in the subjunctive which correspond to 


this indicative, but since they are usually classed among the qui-causal and 
adversative subjunctives, I have omitted them. Cf. Amph. 434, quid ego ni 
negem qui egomet siem, and see footnote p. 8. What is here stated will also 
apply to the clauses of the same nature in the next group, no. III. In group 
II, I have not classified as regards tense, for reasons which have been given, 
le # 


2These may be qui-causal subjunctives. 





qui. 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, TABLES. 39 


Eun. 75, ut redimas quam 
queas minimo ... at quanti 
queas. | 

Stich. 114, ut guom ambulent 

. os obturent. 

Bacch. 139-42, non par uidetur 
neque sit consentaneum quom 
haec intus intus si¢ et cum amica 
accubet quomque osculetur et 
conuiuae alii accubent praesen- 

, tibus illis paedagogus una ut siet. 
Asin. 49, cur filio suscenseam 
patres ut faciunt ceteri. 


(6) Both verbs are in the wmperfect tense. 


Hee. 230, quae hic erant cu- 
rares; Poen. 391, dicebas. 


(c) The dependent verb is not in the same tense as the main verb. 


Cas. 701, cur non impetrem 
quod coepi; Trin. 1024, perut; 
Most. 435, uoluisti; Rud. 1397, 
sum iuratus; Pers. 637, fuit; Aul. 
222, facis; Phorm. 468, domist. 


Group IV. 
IN WHICH THE MAIN VERB IS IN THE POTENTIAL SUBJUNCTIVE. 


(a) Both verbs are wm the present tense. 


Asin. 234, habeo unde quod Capt. 937, lingua nullast qua 
poscis dem; M. G. 82, uolt; negem quidquid roges. 
Heaut. 855, opus sunt. 

Epid. 445, postulas. 

M. G. 615, tu’s? 

M. G. dum ductant, uideas. 


(b) The dependent verb not in the same tense as the main verb. 


Mere. 175, quaerebas? Pers. 
434, ut faceres quod faciunt. 
Epid. 115, swmpst. 


quam. 


dum. 


qui. 


40 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


Group V. 
IN WHICH THE MAIN VERB IS IN THE SUBJUNOCTIVE OF ‘‘ IDEAL 
CERTAINTY.’’ 
(a) A verb in the present tense depending upon a “‘ less vivid future ”’ 
apodosis. 


Cure. 82, istunc gui fert afflic- 
tum uelim; Capt. 237, suadeo; 
Pseud. 427, gestant; Poen. 971, 
tubes; Rud. 96, mactat; True. 


349, culpant; Heaut. 642, sciunt; 


Hec. 794, intellego; Cas. 999, 
dicitis. 

Aul. 493, mores meliores sibi 
parent guam nune ferunt; Aul. 
482-4, uttmur; . . . metuont 

. sumus; M. G. 493, facit. 


Cist. 497, quodquomque optes 
tibi uelim contingere. 

Cist. 97, si ames.. 
ames consulas. 

Asin. 122, mauolet quam non 
reddat quod promiserit. 


. quam 


Capt. 961,1 quod ego fatear 
credin pudeat quom autumes? 

Eun. 863, debeam ... si id 
fecerim praesertim guom se ser- 
uom fateatur! 


(6) Verbs in the present tense (tf attracted, in the imperfect) de- 
pending upon verbs ‘‘ contrary to fact in the present ’’ 
(imperfect subjunctive). 


Adel. 108, sineres illum facere 
dum licet. 

Phorm. 11, minus guam nunc 
laedit laederet; Bacch. 434, 
quamst. 


Phorm. 208, guom hoc non pos- 


sum illud minus possem. 

Asin. 503, erederes . . . quod 
fers; Asin. 860, facit; Hec. 657, 
intellego. 


Rud. 1261, dum. . 

. ipsus esset. 

Bacch. 488,? si uellem plus 
uiderem guam deceret. 


. censeret 


Poen. 681, uidere uos uellem 
guom aurum darem. 


1I am not at all sure that we are right in placing subjunctives after cum- 


causal in the list of “ attraction.” 


The data are too meager to furnish trust- 


worthy results; besides, the question is of no practical importance to classical 


Latin. Cf. p. 51. 


The habit of using that mood to express cause with cum 


may have had its beginning before the time of Terence. Besides, the examples 
here in question contain a strong suggestion of “ remonstrance.” 


2Cf. p. 26. 


quantum. 


gut. 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, TABLES. 41 


(c) Miscellaneous examples in which the two verbs refer to different 
time-spheres. 


Heaut. 953, non auderet facere 
quae fecit; Adel, 314, produztt; 


Cist. 506, dedi; Most, 202, dedi; 


Truc. 349, dedit; Capt. 705, da- 
bam; Eun." 606, simulabar. 


Group VI. 
IN WHICH THE MAIN VERB IS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF ASSUMPTION. 


(a) A verb in the present tense depending upon a ‘‘less vivid future 
condition.”? 


Capt. 906, si memorem ea quae 
conducunt; M. G. 1429, scio; 
Rud. 978, memoras; Rud. 1021, 
quowust; Trin. 470, wocant; 
Andr. 165, wolo; Phorm. 171,mi- 
hist; Pacuuius 407, euentura 
sunt; Pers. 393, damus. 

Truc. 324, lauant. 

Merc. 874, properas; Pers. 206, 
digna’s; Stich. 112, censeo. 

Asin. 507, praecipis. 

Lucil. 501, pettt. 

Caecil. 174, quom aduenis; 
Cato. Frag. J. p. 58, cum... 
vubet. 


Bacch. 778, ni. . 
piam quae is uelitt. 

Trin. 472, siquid placeat quod 
congestum stet. 

Rud. 1150, si tantillum pec- 
cassis quod postules. 


. facta cu- 


(b) A verb in a past tense depending upon a “‘less vivid future 
conditton.’’ 


Capt. 417, si memores quae 
... fecistt; Bacch. 698, diatt; 
Merc. 419, emptast ; Andr. 142, si 
illum obiurges gut tulit; Cist. 
187, widerat. 


Capt. 205, si. . . solutos sinat 
quos ... emertt. 

Amph. 871, quod contraxertm 
si... expetat. 

Cure. 269, si.. 
periurauerint. 

Hee. 555, si is posset... 


quacum consuesset. 


. uelint gut 


1In this sentence the verbs are in the same tense to be sure, but essem 
refers to the present, which of course simulabar does not. 


quantum. 


quam. 


| quantum. 


42 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


(c) Miscellaneous examples in which the two verbs are in different 
tenses. 


Capt. 754, absque hoe esset gut 


Bacch. 564, nisi cum illa guam 


hoc fecit; Trin. 967, sunt mortui. mandassem occiperes amare. 


Pseud. 1236, loquere. 
M. G. 1083, illest. 


Group VII. 


IN WHICH THE MAIN VERB IS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF RESULT OR 
CHARACTERISTIC. 


(a) Both verbs are in the present tense. 


Heaut. 76, ut cures ea guae nil 
attinent; Most. 396, ut facias 
quod wubeo; Eun. 396, facio; 
Andr. 390, sunt certa; Asin. 175, 
uolt; Cure. 66, nullist. 


Adel. 823, duo cum idem faci- 
unt saepe ut possis dicere. 


Adel. 39, quid sit carius quam 
ipse est sibi. 

Pseud. 850, ut appareat quo 
uento. 


(6) Both verbs in 
Men. 20, ut non posset quae 


mammam dabat; Pers. 261, qui 


daret quoius ingenium nouerat. . 


Most. 173, id euenit ut deceat 
quidquid habeas. 

Mere. 1006, arbitri ut sint 
qui praetereant. 

Merc. 840, ubi id eripiatur 
quod placeat. | 

Bacch. 352, ita feci . . . quan- 
tum Jubeat reddere ut reddat. 

Phorm. 153-4, ut qu... 
uelit patrem ut extimescam. 

Amph,. 824, absunt testes qui 
illud guod dicam adsentiant. 

Aul. 791, tam parui preti 
guom pudeat quin purget. 

Asin. 945, tam ingenio duro 
quin ubt . . . sit faciat bene. 

Phorm. 154, patrem ut exti- 
mescam ubi ueniat. 

Hee. 608, qui 
opus sit, possit. 


ubiquomque 


Eun. 554, qui me sequatur quo- 
guo eam. 


the imperfect tense. 


Amph. 47, ut exprobraret ... 
quod faceret. 

Aul. 740, ut id quod non tuom 
esset tangeres. 

Bacch. 352, feci ut auri guan- 
tum uellet sumeret. 


qui. 


qui. 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, TABLES. 43 


(c) The dependent verb is not in the same tense as the main verb. 


Poen. 21, gui dormierunt decet 
. stent; Naeuius 58; opus est. 

Pers. 825, faciebat. 

Hee. 150, accept; Eun. 870, 


studut. 


Capt. 467, nec uidi quoi minus 
procedat guicquid facere occe- 
pertt. 


Capt. 473, qui. . 
rint reddant domi. 
Trin. 621, quoi tuam quom rem 
credideris sine . . . cura dormias. 
M. G. 742, quin ubt triduom 
. . . fuerit, iam odiosus siet. 
Trin. 699, ut ubt adstrinzeris 
. atque dedertis... nec sit 
. . effugias. : 
Pseud. 725, qui quando prin- 
cipium prehenderit .. . teneat. 
Hee. 859, ut uoluptati . 
aduentus tuos quoquomque ad- 
wuenerts ... Sit. 


- quom ede- 


Group VIII. 


IN WHICH THE MAIN VERB IS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF INDIRECT 
QUESTION. 


(a) Both verbs are in the present tense. 


Asin. 27, quid sit quod scire 
expetis eloquere; Men. 972, sunt; 
M. G. 1012, quaeris; Pseud. 216, 
loquor; Pseud. 451, renuntiant; 
Trin. 257, eget; Naeuius, 60, 
tumes. 


Aul. 800, praedico; Bacch. 400, 
oportet. 


Cas. 572, adsitne el . . 
aduocet. 

Cato, R. R. 2, possitne quae 
reliqua sint conficere. 

Trin. 210, falsone an uero cul- 
pent quem uelwnt. 

Poen. 92, quid id sit hominis 
quot Lyco nomen siet. 

Trin. 306, utrum itane esse 
mauelit ut... censeat an... 
ut... uelint. 


- quem 


quam. 


qui. 


Ad ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


(b) Verbs ina past tense depending upon verbs in the same tense. 


M. G. 97, quo modo deuenerim Amph. 1016, exquirere quis 
. quot seruiut; M. G. 345-6, fuerit quem propter corpus... 
utrum egon id quod uidi uiderim; compleuerit. 
Rud. 1310, perut. M. G. 261, qui fuerit ... qu 
sit sectatus. 
Mer. 623, quae facies foret gut 
illam emisset. 


(c) The dependent verb is not in the same tense as the matin verb. 


Amph. 106, quantus amator ul. 29, is scit quae sit quam 
siet quod complacitumst; Cure. compressertt. 
630, elusit; Trin. 7, abut; Hec. 
%32, wusst; Hec. 873, fect; Andr. 
525, ditt. 
Aul. 65, condids. 

Aul. 17, coepi obseruari ecqui 
maiorem filius mihi honorem 
haberet quam eius habuisset pater. 

Heaut. 2, sunt. 
Eun. 522, perit. 


CHAPTER III. 
Tue Uses or THe Construction, Limrrations. 


Some of the conclusions to be drawn from these comparative 
lists are obvious. Mechanical attraction is of relatively rare oc- 
currence in Early Latin. Even when the dependent verb is in 
the same tense as the governing clause, very little emphasis is 
needed to prevent assimilation. In fact, only about thirty-five per 
cent. of the verbs closely attached to a verb in the subjunctive are 
found in the same mood, and more than half of these belong to the 
class which seemed in the preceding discussion to be influenced to 
a great extent by the anticipatory subjunctive. It is impossible, 
however, to give absolutely accurate ratios, since, as will appear 
later, it is not often possible to fix in either class the verbs con- 
nected with conjunctions that may take either the indicative or 
the subjunctive. Such conjunctions are, for instance, pruusquam 
dum and si in early Latin. 

By a closer analysis of the lists of examples given above, we 
may discover to some extent the conditions under which the habit 
of attraction began to spread, or, the converse, the conditions under 
which the new construction did not thrive. The following conclu- 
sions are based not only upon the examples of mechanical attrac- 
tion, but on the examples discussed in chap. I, as well; for it is 
obviously impossible to state in every case whether the subjunctive 
is entirely or merely in part due to the force of mechanical 
attraction. 


1. Ture Time anp TENSE OF THE DEPENDENT CLAUSE. 


The most important element is that of time, as has been implied 
by the classification itself. To be sure, this is not of equal import- 
ance in all constructions. So, for instance, attention has been called. 
to the fact that a break in time-sphere does not affect the mood 
of clauses in dependence upon subjunctives of surprise, remon- 
strance, or indignation. Of course, conditional and independent 

45 


46 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


expressions of wish also present abnormal situations as regards 
tense. Tabulating the rest with reference to the time relationship 
which exists between the dependent and the governing verb, we 
find the following ratios of verbs attracted to those not attracted: 


Subjunctive. Indicative. 


Verbs in the future depending upon other verbs in the 


Sutetes ‘Cen. POCE) ics pawee ns aise st eaeela 124 71 
Other verbs depending upon verbs in the same time-sphere 10 | 10 
Verbs in the present depending upon verbs in the future. 49 162 
Verbs in the perfect depending upon verbs in the future.. 16 64 
Other verbs depending upon verbs not in the same time- 

BOTOED 65's cs sia pines o.ca Whe Minima a hb a whose wisd ieee anaes 2 27 


2. Tue Position or THE DEPENDENT CLAUSE. 


The position of the dependent clause is also found to be a fac- 
tor. A sentence may well open with a subordinate clause, even 
when the speaker’s mind has not yet clearly given the exact shade 
of meaning to the main verb with which it is finally uttered. 
Thus in shaping a sentence like the following: 


Rud. 485, Qui homo sese miserum et mendicum uolet, 
Neptuno credat sese, 


the mind may well have conceived the relative clause in entirety, 
before it had any definite feeling in regard to the main verb. In 
like manner the dependent clause may be forming when the main 
verb has already been uttered and its modal tone is growing indis- 
tinct, as may be the case in sentences like the following: 

Lucil. 440, Ut ego effugiam quod te imprimis cupere apisci 

intellego. 

Sometimes the dependent verb is attracted, though it precedes 
the main verb; very often when it follows. The favorite position, 
however, seems to be between the subjunctive verb and its intro- 
ductory word, when this,—like ut, ne, etc., or any verb, like per- 
swadeo, which calls for a subjunctive clause,—signals the approach 
of a subjunctive. A case in point is: 


Andr..424, I nunciam intro ne in mora quom opus sit sies. 


1This term “future” refers, of course, not only to the future and future- 
perfect tenses, but also to many of the verbs in the present indicative and to 
very many verbs of the present subjunctive—especially those of the volitive 
subjunctive. 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, LIMITATIONS. 47 


In sentences containing independent subjunctives, and in many 
conditional periods and in indirect questions, there is usually no 
possibility of a central position for a dependent clause, but the 
following table will show the relative importance, under normal 
conditions, of the three positions mentioned: 

(When the dependent clause lies before the governing subjunc 
tive and precedes all sign of its coming, it may be said to be in 
the first position. The second position is the central one just illus- 
trated. The third position is that in which the clause lies after 
the governing verb. ) 


1st Position. 2d Position, $d Position. 
Subjunctive 5 88 73 
Indicative 34 87 138 


It appears that the central position claims fifty-five per cent. 
of the attracted verbs, while only a third of those not attracted are 
in that place. 

The dependent clause is occasionally found between the intro- 
ductory conjunction and its verb, in conditional clauses like the 
following: 

Pers. 206, si ut digna’s faciant, odio hercle habeant, 
and in imprecations and expressions of wish, as in: 

Aul. 785, ut illum di immortales omnes deaeque quantumst per- 

duint ; 
but instances of this kind are not very numerous. The data in 
regard to the position of verbs depending upon independent voli- 
tive and optative sentences and upon conditional clauses and 
clauses of ideal certainty are as follows: 


1st: Position, 2d Position. 8d Position. 
Subjunctive 23 15 24 
Indicative 44 34 78 


3. Precision In TENsE anp Mopat FRELING. 


When precision in certain respects is required, the dependent 
verb is seldom attracted. 

(a) As regards time, the present subjunctive may stand for a 
present or a future indicative, and therefore is often of itself 
somewhat ambiguous. In the same way, the imperfect subjunc- 
tive may be confusing in that it represents an imperfect indicative 
or a future thrown into the past. It may be for the sake of avoid- 


48 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


ing this possible ambiguity that the future indicative occurs in a 
few sentences like the following: 

Bacch. 989, Volo ut quod iubebo facias. 
and the present indicative in many sentences like this: 

M. G. 1054, Age, ... fiat quod ¢e oro. . 
In the same way, the imperfect indicative (cupiebam) in the fol- 
lowing prevents the interpretation of the verb as a past future of 
a generalizing clause, which would have been possible if the verb 
had become imperfect subjunctive by attraction: 

Eun. 574, Ut essem una quacum cupiebam. 
It is at least true that no verb in Early Latin is attracted if it is 
modified by a temporal adverb which refers to a time differing 
from that of the governing clause. Cf.: 


Andr. 339, ubi inueniam Pamphilum 
ut metum in quo nunc est adimam ? 


(6) Further, the indicative must obviously stand when precision 
in modal feeling is called for. So often does the tone of the gov- 
erning clause penetrate to the dependent verb that the mind is 
continually expecting to find it there. In a great number of cases, 
though it is not definitely called for, it matters little if there is 
a shading of it; but often it is very essential to state a plain fact 
which is wholly devoid of the volitive, optative or conditional atti- 
tude of the governing verb. The terms “integral part” or 
“essential part’ are ambiguous for the reason that they ignore 
considerations of this nature. A clause may be functionally an 
integral part of its sentence, and essential to its meaning without 
having its mood. On the other hand, if these terms are used with 
the understanding that they convey the modal and temporal feel- 
ing of the main sentence, such use ignores the fact of mechanical 
attraction. The following sentence will illustrate what I mean 
in speaking of precision in mood secured by the indicative: 


Pers. 293, Di deaeque me omnes perdant—|| 
eueniant uolo tibi quae optas. 


Quae optas refers definitely to the prayer just uttered. A sub- 
junctive here would have been ambiguous, as it might have been 
equivalent to the above if attracted, or could have been understood 
as partaking of the optative nature of eweniant, or as conditional. 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, LIMITATIONS. 49 


In fact both of these points are well illustrated by a number of 
sentences in which the contrast of time and of modal feeling is 
brought out by contrasting a subjunctive verb with the indicative 
of the same verb. See the following: 

Trin. 351, Quod habes ne habeas et illue quod non habes habeas. 


Aul. 482, Et inuidia nos minore utamur quam utimur 
Et illae malam rem metuant quam metuont magis 
Et nos minore sumptu simus quam sumus. 


(c) In fact, as any contrast necessarily calls for an explicit 
statement of the contrasted parts, wherever such a condition pre- 
vails there is less likelihood of attraction. So in the following 
there is a contrast between the subjects tu and ego: 

Trin. 341, Non eo haec dico quin quae tu wis ego uelim. 

A contrast of this kind may be brought out by some other word 
in the sentence, as by pariter in the following: 

Cap. 329, Nunc hoc animum aduorte ut ea quae sentio pariter 

scias. 
or by the tone of the context, as in the following: 
Trin. 979, Dum ille ne sis quem ego esse nolo. 


4, Tur Function oF THE DEPENDENT CLAUSE. 


A comparison of the determinative with the generalizing clauses 
will prove that the readiness with which a verb is attracted de- 
pends to a great extent on the function of its clause as a part of 
the sentence. The determinative clause is necessarily precise in 
its statements. It aims at accuracy in the expression of its modal 
and temporal feeling, and is apt to possess a peculiar emphasis 
from this fact. In dependence upon a volitive or optative verb it 
is therefore likely, by remaining in the indicative, to deny that it 
partakes in any respect of the tone of the governing verb; and in 
subjunctive conditional sentences, where the Roman was so prone 
to cast the shadow of the ideal even over clauses which expressed 
facts generally known to be true, the determinative clause is much 
less frequently attracted than is the generalizing clause. Con- 
trast, for example, the following, which is determinative: 

Rud. 978, si istuc ius sit quod memoras, piscatores perierint, 
with this, which is generalizing: ‘ 


50 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


Bacch. 778, ni meum 
Gnatum tam amem atque ei facta cupiam quae is 
UCU icin 's 
tua iam uirgis latera lacerentur. 


An examination of the attracted verbs which refer to the present, 
while in dependence upon volitive, optative, potential, or condi- 
tional clauses in the present subjunctive, will show that even 
though they are determining rather than generalizing, and are to 
be interpreted as referring definitely to the present in connection 
with the events spoken of in the rest of the sentence in which they 
are found, they will, with but few exceptions, allow of an ideal 
interpretation which removes them from the sphere of a deter- 
mined time or circumstance. They are of the type illustrated by 
the following: | 

Amph. 630, memor sum et diligens ut quae wmperes compareant, 
in which, to be sure, guae wmperes refers to the commands just 
being given, but may in a larger sense mean “ whatever commands 
you give ”’ or “ shall give.” Soin M. G. 1230, (oro) quod cupiam 
ne grauetur, quod cupiam seems to refer to the wishes just ex- 
pressed, but may here be conceived of as a part of a general prayer, 
‘May not Venus begrudge my wishes!” Contrast the more defi- 
nite statement: 

Hee. 674, cogis ea quae nolo ut praesente hoc loquar. 

My point then is that such. clauses, while actually serving 
in their proper context as determinative clauses, are also given a 
form which suggests a general meaning of universal application, 
much as the universal presents in conditional sentences may be so 
expressed as to serve as such, while at the same time they adapt 
themselves to the feeling of the sentence in which they are found. 
Cf. Tuse. Disp., III, 35: Diceres aliquid et magno quidem philoso- 
pho dignum, si ea bona esse sentires, quae essent (2. e., swnt) 
homine dignissima. 


5. Tur Temporat Versus THE RELATIVE CLAUSES. 


The temporal clauses in Early Latin, when attached to a sub- 
junctive, are found in the same mood more frequently in propor- 
tion to the number of occurrences, than the relative clauses under 
the same condition. There are a great number referring to the 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, LIMITATIONS. 51 


future, of the nature discussed under the anticipatory, and we 
saw that these were as a rule subjunctive, if conditions were not 
unfavorable. This very fact would naturally give a strong im- 
petus to attraction in the temporal clauses in particular. Before 
giving the general table, I would point out the more important 
habits of some of the individual temporal connectives. 

Cum.—I have attributed the subjunctive with cum, eleven 
times to the inherent feeling of surprise, indignation, etc. (see pp. 
8-11), three times to the necessities of its service as a past-future 
(see p. 12), forty-three times to its future force after a subjunc- 
tive (see pp. 16-21), ten times to a more mechanical attraction. 
After a subjunctive, the cum temporal clause has been found 
in the future indicative twelve times, in the present indicative 
seven times, and in the perfect indicative twice. We have found 
the verb with cum-causal attracted five times, and unattracted 
seven times; I would, however, call attention to the fact that the 
causal connection is not functionally a close one, as is seen in the 
case of the numerous loosely attached qui-causal clauses. Adding 
to this consideration the interesting fact that the quando-causal 
clause, out of fifteen opportunities, is not once attracted in Plau- 
tus and Terence, I would suggest that the word attraction must 
not be employed too frequently as a waste-basket, in attempting 
to remove troublesome subjunctive cum-clauses from Early Latin. 
The following verbs after cum I have classed with perfect subjunc- 
tives rather than future perfect indicatives after comparing their 
nature and position with those to which no doubt is attached : 

Men. 5438, ut te lubenter uideam quom ad nos ueneris. 

Trin. 621, Capt. 434, Truc. 234, Capt. 473, Eun. 933, Hec. 694. 
The following, I think, are indicative: Cas. 130, Heaut. 557, 
Phorm. 185. 

Quando.—This conjunction does not seem to be used in Terence 
as purely temporal. The statistics which are found below re- 
garding this conjunction apply, therefore, mainly to Plautus. As 
verbs after quando-causal are not found to be attracted, I have 
not even placed the non-attracted indicatives of this class in my 
tables, but for the sake of completeness give a list of them here: 
Capt. 12, Men. 834, M. G. 1269, Bacch. 445, Poen. 815, Rud. 

1Cf. P. Scherer, De Particula Quando, Studemund Studien, II, p. 130. 


52 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


1182, Adel. 877, Adel. 201, Adel..287. In the following, which 
belong to the same class, the conjunction is quandoquidem: Mer. 
170, Trin. 351, Trin. 991, Eun. 378, Andr. 487, Hee. 490. As 
ubi and the remaining temporal conjunctions show no marked pe- 
culiarities, it will be sufficient to refer to the table given below 
for the facts regarding them. 

The following is a synopsis which will give as fairly as can be 
done the comparative frequency of attraction in the temporal and 
relative clauses. It summarizes the said clauses which are tabu- 
lated in the collections of pp. 16—44, omitting the clauses in which 
the causal or adversative force predominates. 


Lie d 


ubicumque quam 
cum, wbé, quando, ut, utcumque. quotiens. primum. Total. 
Subjunctive 57 17 9 3 2 88 
Indicative 22 13 6 2 2 45 
Relative clauses. | 
Subjunctive 104 
Indicative 269 


The proportion of subjunctives in these temporal clauses as 
compared with the subjunctives in relative clauses is thus seen to 
be about five to one. 

A few words of explanation are also needed in regard to the 
behavior of the conjunctions commonly used with the anticipatory 
subjunctive. 

Dum.—It is not within the scope of this paper to decide when 
dum takes the subjunctive because of its own force without regard 
to its position, and I have thought it sufficient to call attention to 
the fact that the mood of the main clause must be reckoned with, 
for which purpose I have tabulated the uses of dum in Early Latin 
with the present and future tenses. 


Indicative. Subjunctive. 
After After After After 
indicative. subjunctive. indicative. subjunctive. 
Dum = present 124 14 0 3 
while and as 
long as future 17 0 2 9 
= until future 18 6 9 9 


This table does not take into account clauses in indirect discourse 
or in dependence upon infinitives. 

Of chief interest is the behavior of dum = until. After seeing 
how the indicative predominates after this conjunction, and that it 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, LIMITATIONS. 53 


keeps six verbs out of attraction, it is impossible to say that all of 
the subjunctive examples are due to the regular habit of dum = 
until to take that mood. Since, however, it was impossible to 
eall any of them undoubted instances of attraction, I have not 
admitted any of this kind into my tables in Chapter II. For the 
sake of completeness, I shall give a list here of the nine which 
are subjunctive and depend upon other subjunctives. They are: 
Cist. 782, M. G. 1249, Truc. 482, Andr. 980, Pseud. 1234, Cure. 
526, Rud. 328, Rud. 1190, Trin. 757. 

A rule is sometimes found in the handbooks stating that cer- 
tain conjunctions which are used with both moods avoid attrac- 
tion in order to prevent confusion, and that dum is one of these. 
A glance at the table will show that so far was Early Latin from 
thus distinguishing between dum — until and its other uses, that 
there are as many instances (14) of dum = while in the subjunc- 
tive as of the avoidance of attraction by the same particle. We 
have seen (p. 13) that all the evidence seems rather to point to a 
survival of an early anticipatory subjunctive use, even with this 
meaning, when the verb refers to the future. 

Priusquam presents some of the same difficulties as dum, because 
even when it stands free, it takes the subjunctive at times. It is, 
however, safe to say that a just share of the subjunctives which 
are in dependence upon other verbs of that mood should be attrib- 
uted to the growing habit of attraction, since priusquam in Early 
Latin, when standing free, takes the indicative far more frequently 
than the subjunctive. Priusquam does not seem to take the sub- 
junctive in Terence.’ I therefore feel safe in attributing the mood 
of Eun. 751 to the influence of the main verb. The passages in 
doubt are: Rud. 456, Men. 846, Mer. 1015, Aul. 154, Epid. 277, 
Truc. 523, Pseud. 1031, Bacch. 175, Trin. 886. 


6. ADVERBIAL VERSUS ADJECTIVAL CLAUSEs. 


A further reason for the preponderance of the subjunctive in 
temporal clauses is that these are usually adverbial clauses and 
as such generally depend more closely upon the governing verb 
than do relative clauses, which are, as a rule, attached to the sub- 
ject or object of the verb. Similarly, it is obvious that relative 


10f. Lange, p. 36. Adel. 583 is an example of the second singular gen- 
eralizing subjunctive. 


54 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


clauses in dependence upon the object of the verb are more closely 
connected with that verb than those which are attached to the 
subject, and are in consequence more likely to be attracted, as is 
proved by the table hereto appended. This table includes only 
such examples as depend directly upon the subject, verb or object. 


In Dependence Upon the Upon the 
upon the Subject. Verb. Object. 
Subjunctive 26 114 64 
Indicative 60 70 122 


Fifty-six per cent. of the subjunctives are in clauses which depend 
directly upon the verb, whereas but twenty-eight per cent. of the 
indicatives are in such clauses. 

It is no doubt the failure to make this fundamental distinction 
which has led grammarians into the erroneous conclusion that the 
indicative is kept in “ circumlocutions equivalent to a substan- 
tive,” a statement which not only fails to give the real reason for 
the actual phenomena, but even misstates the facts in the case. 
A very considerable number of clauses of this kind are in fact 
attracted. See, for example, the following: 


Men. 994, Caue quisquam quod illic minitetur nostrum flocci 

fecerit (quod minitetur == minas eius). 

Eun. 1026, ut . . . faciam quod iubeat (quod iubeat = iussa 

eius). 
Add to these Phorm. 125, Trin. 211, Bacch. 788, Trin. 715, Eun. 
790 and many others. It is not true, therefore, that verbs of 
this kind are never attracted. However, the majority are not, and 
the real cause of this fact is that such clauses usually modify the 
subject or object of the sentence or modifiers of these, and are not, 
therefore, as closely bound up with the governing verb as the ad- 
verbial clauses are. In fact, the table just given shows that almost 
70 per cent. of such clauses after subjunctive verbs remain in the 
indicative. 

Some of the adverbial clauses present difficulties which call for 
a few words of explanation. 

Si-clauses.—I have already spoken of the impossibility of mak- 
ing a satisfactory statement in regard to the conditional clauses, 
but it can at least be stated with certainty that the sz-clause feels 
the influence of the mood of the apodosis. Rotheimer’s' collection 

1De enuntiatis condicionalibus Plautinis, 1876, pp. 42-7. 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, LIMITATIONS. 55 


of the conditional sentences of Early Latin shows that when there 
is a question of mixed conditions, the si-clause is quite regularly 
in the subjunctive if the main clause is an apodosis of the regular 
type in the subjunctive. There are but thirteen exceptions, of 
which the following is an illustration: 


Mer. 351, si dico ut res est . . . quem ad modum existumet 
me ? 


This fact becomes the more noteworthy when one finds that 129 
exceptions occur in the converse type, which means that the prin- 
cipal clause of the conditional sentence is very often indicative 
though connected with a subjunctive protasis, as in: 


M. G. 673, siquid sumas, sumptus est. 


This contrast certainly points to assimilation of the protasis to 
the mood of the apodosis. 

I find it impossible to be more explicit than this, and as it would 
be useless to attempt to decide in particular cases whether a si- 
clause is attracted or not, none of this class will be found in the 
tables. 

The ut- and quam-clauses of comparison.—The ut-clause of com- 
parison is sometimes said, in the hand-books, to avoid the mood 
used with final- and consecutive-ut, for the sake of clearness. It 
is true that though this is an adverbial clause, it is not often at- 
tracted; but I doubt whether the real cause of the fact is the rea- 
son given. This clause often precludes assimilation by its very 
nature, since, as has been pointed out (p. 49), comparisons and 
contrasts naturally tend to throw emphasis upon the verbs juxta- 
posed, which fact entails precision in expression of the modal and 
temporal force. Cf.: 

Mere. 874, si huc item properes ut istuc properas facias rectius. 
But this consideration is equally true of quam in comparisons 
and all other comparative and contrasting expressions. The fol- 
lowing may represent a large group of this kind: 

Truc. 324, si proinde amentur mulieres diu quam lauant. 
Again, the next paragraph will show that many of these clauses, 
adverbial though they are, depend upon adjectives at a second re- 
move from the verb of the governing clause. ‘These two reasons 
will account for the fact that such clauses are not attracted as 
frequently as the other adverbial clauses. 


56 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


In Early Latin the ut-clauses are found to be attracted four 
times and to avoid attraction twenty-five times. With quam in 
comparisons the ratio is 6 : 17. 


7. Tur Proximity oF THE DEPENDENT TO THE GovERNING 
CLAUSE. 


A minuter classification must now be made in order to deter- 
mine how closely the dependent clause must be attached to the 
main body of the governing clause, in order to be attracted. It 
has appeared in the above that not only may those verbs be at- 
tracted which are found in adverbial clauses and in direct depend- 
ence upon the subjunctive verb, but also those which are attached 
to the subject or object of the same. In Early Latin this state 
ment is not to be understood as applying to clauses after ante 
cedents complete in themselves, which remain in the indicative 
(cf. Cato 84, uideto ut bene percocas medium, ubi altissimum 
est), nor to any of the loosely attached coordinate relative clauses, 
the “ forward moving clauses,” or parenthetical asides. It refers 
to the closely attached clause which is necessary to complete the 
meaning of the antecedent expressed or understood. 

1. In Early Latin the relative clause, when attached to the sub- 
ject or attribute complement of the sentence, is found to be at- 
tracted under the following conditions: 

(a) When the antecedent of the relative is not expressed, as in 
Amph. 630, diligens ut quae imperes compareant (20 examples). 

(6) When the antecedent is expressed and is a noun or sub- 
stantive adjective, as in Most. 413, uiri doctist opus quae dissig- 
nata sint . . . tranquille cuncta ut proueniant (2 examples). 

(c) When the antecedent is expressed and is a demonstrative 
pronoun,—is, ille, ete., as in Cure. 29, ne id quod ames . . ». tibi 
sit probro (4 examples). 

2. Similarly the relative clause when attached to the object of 
the verb is found to be attracted: 

(a) When the antecedent is not expressed, as in Epid. 6, di 
dent quae uelis (41 examples). 

(b) When the antecedent is expressed and is a noun, as in Cur. 
550, tuom qui signum ad me attulisset nuntium ne spernerem 
(5 examples). 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, LIMITATIONS. 57 


(c) When the antecedent is expressed and is a demonstrative 
pronoun. Cf. Lucil. 572, concedat id quod uelit (18 examples). 
3. It may also be attached to the indirect object of the verb. 
Cf. Pseud. 570, det locum illi qui queat (5 examples). 
4, Or to the object of a complementary infinitive depending 
upon the subjunctive verb, or forming its subject. Cf. Aul. 600, 
quod iubeat properet persequi; and Mer. 152, ut quae scirem 
scire actutum tibi liceret (5 examples). 
5. Or to a substantive in an adverbial clause which modifies 
the predicate, as in Hee. 491, exopto ut relicuam uitam exigat 
cum eo uiro me qui sit fortunatior. So also Cist. 85. 
6. As regards the adverbial clauses, the larger part of these 
(a) (114) depend directly upon the governing verb, usually by 
means of a temporal conjunction, as in 
Pseud. 307, quando nil sit, simul amare desinat. 
We have already shown (p. 50) that this is the chief reason 
why so large a proportion of temporal clauses suffer attraction. 
Furthermore, many adverbial clauses are attracted which are 
not directly attached to the verb, but 
(6) depend upon some modifier of the subject, as 
Pers. 237, Numquam .. . exterebrabis tu ut sis peior quam 
ego siem. Cf. Truc. 96. 

(c) Or of the object. Cf. Hee. 729, 

uidendumst ne minus propter iram hine impetrem quam pos- 
siem. Cf. Pers. 340. 

(d) Or which depend upon a second adverbial modifier of the 
predicate, as in Rud. 1243, ut cum maiore dote abeat quam 
aduenerit. Cf. Bacch. 488; Hec. 555; Aul. 17. 

It is worthy of note that the last three classes contain for the 
most part adverbial clauses of comparison with quam, and that 
many of these clauses are of necessity far removed grammatically 
from the governing verb, and therefore remain in the indicative. 
On the other hand, it is readily seen that in a sentence like the 
last one cited (Rud. 1243) the dependent verb aduenerit, even 
though a second remove from abeat grammatically, is, in simi- 
larity of function and in position, very near to it; considerations 
which probably weigh as heavily as that of grammatical prox- 
imity in determining the mood of the verb. 


58 ATTRACTION OF MOOD IN EARLY LATIN. 


SuMMARY AND CoNCLUSION. 


The first part of this paper makes an attempt (1) to explain 
the origin and (2) to describe the growth of the construction of 
modal attraction. (1) It endeavors to show that from several 
constructions (enumerated on p. 7) in which the dependent clause 
contained the modal force of the governing clause, the tendency 
arose which was the source of the construction of modal attraction. 
(2) It attempts to describe how this beginning developed by the 
law of analogy into a habit of placing dependent clauses in the 
subjunctive when attached to clauses of that mood. 

The second part of the paper, after giving a complete list of 
the clauses in dependence upon subjunctives in early Latin, at- 
tempts to define the limits of the field into which the construction 
in question spread in that period, and to point out the obstacles 
which so limited it. This discussion shows with more definiteness 
than can be reproduced in a general statement, (1) that the at- 
tracted clause is preferably in the same time-sphere as the clause 
on which it depends; (2) that its favorite position is between the 
introductory conjunction (when such exists) and the verb of the 
governing clause; (3) that its verb rarely expresses precise modal 
and temporal force; (4) that the clause as a whole is rather of 
the generalizing than of the determinative type; (5) that it is 
more frequently a temporal than a relative clause; (6) that it is 
connected with the predicate more frequently than with the sub- 
ject or object of the sentence, and (7) that, as a rule, it is an 
essential clause, and grammatically depends very closely upon 
the main body of the clause to which it is attached. 

The above, I think, are practically all and the only statements 
of importance that can be made regarding the limitations of its 
uses in Early Latin. It is sometimes said’ that under given con- 
ditions a clause is inevitably attracted. On the contrary, I be- 
lieve that the comparative tables given above and the discussion 
of the same have made it evident that attraction is never abso- 


180 for example Riemann et Goelzer (Gram. Comp., p. 724): Cas ow le 
subjonctif est obligatoire—Le subjonctif est nécessaire lorsque la proposi- 
tion oi il doit se trouver exprime une idée qui compléte et achéve l’expres- 
sion de la pensée contenue dans la proposition infinitive ou subjonctive a 
laquelle elle se rattache. The sentence that he gives to illustrate this state- 
ment is an example, not of assimilation, but of Indirect Discourse. 


THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION, LIMITATIONS. 59 


lutely necessary. Practically every example of attraction was 
balanced by one or several non-attracted clauses which, so far as 
closeness of attachment is concerned, were of the same nature as 
the attracted clauses which they resembled. 

These results may seem somewhat unsatisfactory in that no 
single short statement has been found adequate in defining the 
construction. However, a short definition may serve the peda- 
gogical purposes of those who correctly understand the usages of 
the construction, and know the actual facts about its limitations 
as I have tried to present them in the preceding. A rule may 
be formulated somewhat as follows: When a clause depending 
upon a subjunctive clause forms an essential part of the thought 
of the governing clause, it may be put in the subjunctive. In 
this rule, however, the word “ essential”? must be interpreted in 
the light of all of the preceding discussion; and it must be re- 
membered that the probability of the assimilation of a clause 
varies with its success or non-success in complying with the quali- 
fications herein enumerated. These are quite tangible, and, as 
we have seen, lend themselves readily to definite, statistical treat- 
ment. ‘To one who understands these the study may bring satis- 
factory results. 

Finally I would protest against the common custom of treating 
this construction as a kind of Indirect Discourse. This error is 
probably due to the fact that the two constructions behave in much 
the same way, and are to a certain extent affected by the same 
limitations. It is also true that one often finds it difficult, not 
to say impossible, to decide whether a verb is influenced by one 
or the other, or by both. We have seen, however, that there is 
very little in common between them. Their origins are widely 
separated, and any grammar that purports to be historical should 
treat them separately. 

Again, the construction of assimilation should be carefully dis- 
tinguished from that which occurs after an infinitive. The two 
have in many particulars the same beginnings, they have prac- 
tically the same habits, but the latter is more closely allied to that 
of Indirect Discourse than the former, and is of rarer occurrence. 










LIBRARY 
OF THE 


UNIVERSITY 
ALIFORNI\K 


‘\ 
nonlin ke 
Deine 
aya Jy 
une " brea a 

ax CIDE ES NERS EN Wit 


AS 
RAS 
, 


tf 


i) 
oY 


iis BE te 


4 


d 
f i . Nan 
Heine t f 4 py NS , . { FIA ie 
Nite Rt y UO vir | Mey ory 
NOY ith { , My Ne 





M (eh 
ne 
NG 
the 


=a 


nhl 
Mh ma 
Wait Ny 
ia 


\ 


yt 
4h It 


y 
hae] 
Bes AH, 
Bay iy, "4 
ya f 
rye (ei 
Uae) 
YAN 
ans 
ot 


i A 


I 
WAS 


yates a 
Hy Vane 
EAS 

Veale 


wifi 
} 


wa ey 


" 


; i 
ALY C LRG 
ane 
Ni 











i 
PA are a 


wel AMA es Vere won a) 


Wiebe g cad 


Berets ia aT 


Wem 


Be iim are 
a 


be, 








i, 


4 + 
~~, c u 
mS ONS he Sis) ‘ 
4 ‘ i | ;, 


Ce ee 
& ‘Eee: 
ap * fi 
ESE 

eh 





¢ 


a 


ad, 


: Win -< 





